Curating facts functions as polemic more effectively than explicit argumentation

Evidence

It is curious that Peter the Venerable’s own polemic was not associated with the main corpus in the manuscripts, or, consequently, by Bibliander; this may be the result of accident, but it suggests, as did Vincent’s treatment of Peter of Toledo’s Risalah text, that the European public was more interested in facts about Muhammad and Islam than in argued polemic. It seems probable that in some writers’ eyes the great polemic lay in the selection, arrangement and presentation of supposedly factual material, rather than in such argumentation as Peter the Venerable, for example, based upon it. Ratiocination might be superfluous, even distracting, when a selection of facts — allegations — could be relied on to induce the desired reaction in the mind of the reader. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1302 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Maracci provides a prefatory life of Muhammad, followed by an academic introduction to the Qur’an, both in the modern manner. In his prefatory note, he explains that he utilises Muslim authors, not because he thinks them sincere, but because ‘when we act against the enemies of religion, we attack them more happily with their own arms than with ours, and (thus) more happily overcome them’. In fact, Maracci’s scholarship is not disinterested; his purpose is polemic, but he has mastered the new technique. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1700 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Medieval anti-Islamic polemic worked through fact curation rather than argument — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1302; Polemical intent can coexist with rigorous textual scholarship — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1700; Unchallenged assertions gain credibility with passive audiences — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice: How to Communicate…, 263 (+2 more)

Related

• Medieval anti-Islamic polemic worked through fact curation rather than argument (similarity 0.91)
• Vincent’s anti-Islamic method was data-driven rather than argumentative (similarity 0.88)
• Polemical intent can coexist with rigorous textual scholarship (similarity 0.85)
• Medieval polemicists ignored known facts to fabricate Muslim heretical intent (similarity 0.85)
• Extracting facts from arguments stripped medieval polemic of context (similarity 0.85)
• Medieval audiences preferred Islam accounts easier to ridicule over accurate ones (similarity 0.84)
• Medieval disputation records were largely constructed strawman debates (similarity 0.83)
• Medieval anti-Islamic polemic circulated as a living shared tradition (similarity 0.83)
• Polemical scholars adopted textual accuracy only as a tactical weapon against Islam (similarity 0.83)
• Medieval anti-Islamic polemic could work from accurate hadith rather than fabricated detail (similarity 0.82)
• Medieval polemicists quietly dropped claims lacking cross-tradition confirmation (similarity 0.81)
• False statements about Islam persisted for centuries because community good seemed to require them (similarity 0.81)
• Factual corrections to Christian anti-Islamic polemic only patched a weakened doctrinal structure (similarity 0.80)
• Medieval Christian polemicists blended entertainment with controversy, favoring polemically useful facts over accuracy (similarity 0.80)
• Informed medieval polemicists still clung to untenable anti-Muslim fables (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Medieval anti-Islamic polemic worked through fact curation rather than argument #exemplifies (0.95) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1302
• Polemical intent can coexist with rigorous textual scholarship #qualifies (0.75) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1700
• Unchallenged assertions gain credibility with passive audiences #corroborates (0.72) — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 263
• Narrative can dislodge prejudice more effectively than polemics and polls #complicates (0.72)