Crusade polemic framed Muslim iconoclasm as proof of implacable enmity

Evidence

This is a potent ideological cocktail. The Saracen pagan king, inspired by the demons whose idols he worships, lusts after pure Christian boys and decapitates them when they do not surrender their bodies to him. In fury, he directs his flaming sword against those Christian provinces such as Galicia whose people rebel against the cult of the idols. The interior Christian minority and the exterior Christian enemy are both threatened by this diabolical power. Hrotsvitha makes no call to war, does not urge Christian knights to aid their oppressed Spanish brethren. But it is easy to see how this view of the pagan other could (and would) subsequently be used to justify war against Saracen “pagans”—and against Wendish or Lithuanian pagans closer to Gandersheim. Many earlier authors assumed that the Saracens or Arabs continued to observe the same cults as had their pagan ancestors. Yet Hrotsvitha is the first Latin author to describe this paganism in lurid detail and to use it to justify resistance against Saracen rule. This strategy will become common two centuries later, as the writers on the first Crusade glorify and justify the killing of Saracens by Christian knights. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 600 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

These very same Saracens greatly abhor images, and they destroy pictures, and trample them, and fling them into filthy places. Indeed I heard that recently, after they captured the city of Tripoli, the Saracens dragged a crucifix on the tail of an ass, and threw all the foul things they could on the images. When indeed the Sultan Bendocar had taken the city and returned toward Damascus after his victory, I went to his army so that I might help out the captive [Christians]. And as I walking amongst the Army some Saracens called me and asked “why do you Christians adore pictures and images?” I responded to them “You are wrong, for Christians do not adore pictures or images, but they adore and venerate the saints who are in heaven, whom the pictures represent.” And they were silent, not knowing what more to say. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 1083 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

There was little recognition that Christians were inconsistent to advocate the use of force against Islam, while condemning Islam for its theoretic approval of the use of force; and again, to cut themselves off from Islamic society, while despising Muslims for ‘refusing to dispute’. … The absence of any real possibility of dispute, combined with this fear of failure as a Providential punishment, may explain the preference for a violence which allowed the relief of feelings without any necessity for ratiocination. It may explain why, when violence of a military nature and directed against the enemy was impossible, there was a movement which sought to provoke martyrdom, an extracting of violence out of the enemy’s disposition. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 746 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The medieval Muslim-idol legend originated as Crusade war propaganda; Anti-Muslim polytheism charges were deliberate Crusade propaganda; Muslim anti-Christian polemics emerged as reactions to crusade and mission (+19 more)

Broader Connections

• Medieval polemicists framed Muslim image-abhorrence as savage iconoclasm #corroborates (1.00) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 1083
• Depicting Muslims as idolaters supplied the first textual justification for crusade #qualifies (1.00) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 600
• Medieval crusade rhetoric framed Muslims as objects of conversion or extermination #complicates (0.90) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 625
• Medieval Christian polemicists projected their own violence onto a monolithic Islam to justify crusade #complicates (0.90) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 746
• Crusade-era polemic framed Islam as carnally licentious and militarily coercive against Christian love #complicates (0.85) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 1036
• Medieval depictions of Islam as heresy served to justify violence and resist conversion #complicates (0.80) — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 139
• Medieval Christian polemicists framed Islam as a religion of compelled violence #complicates (0.80) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 710
• Medieval Christian polemicists framed Islam as lust-driven heresy rather than separate religion #complicates (0.80)
• Medieval polemic attacked Muslim aspects that scandalized Christian observers #complicates (0.80) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1472
• Medieval anti-Islamic polemics aimed to fortify Christians rather than convert Muslims #complicates (0.80)
• Christian polemic inverted Muslim claims about the Paraclete into anti-Muslim mockery #complicates (0.75) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 308
• Medieval Christian polemic framed Islam alongside heresy and Judaism #complicates (0.75) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1045
• Byzantine polemicists twisted Muslim monotheism into idolatry claims #complicates (0.75) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 305
• Crusade propagandists framed Muslim conquests as divine punishment for Christian sins #complicates (0.75) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 1077
• Medieval Christian polemics demonized Muhammad to justify crusader violence against Muslims #complicates (0.75) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 886