Even factually accurate Christian accounts distorted Islam through selective emphasis

Evidence

Islamic institutions were treated as selectively as the life of Muhammad. Relatively little was suggested that was competely absurd, like the more fantastic legends about the Prophet; in this category might be classed the idea of sexual promiscuity (including ten husbands for every woman) but such absurdities as this were rare. Yet the more sober accounts of Islam resemble the more sober biographies of the Prophet in that actual facts were manipulated by selection and omission, by exaggeration and invention and misapplication. The Latin treatment of a subject tended again and again to be unreasonable, even when the general outline of what was said was not significantly false. Sexual questions provide the best example. The undue emphasis that they were given is perhaps the strongest evidence for this of all, but there are particular points to note. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1357

Categorization

• XREF: Mirrors the pattern in modern media bias where true facts are skewed by disproportionate emphasis — echoes Edward Said’s Orientalism. — connects to: Christians misread Islamic ritual by assuming it mirrored their own; Christian polemicists read Muslim sources as unwittingly confirming Christian legends — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1314; Mediaeval authors often deliberately chose the worst accounts of Muhammad. (+1 more)