Islam’s relationship to Jewish sources differed structurally from Christianity’s

Evidence

The Muslims, unlike the Christians, did not retain the Hebrew Bible as part of the canon, regarding it as superseded. Whereas for Christians the Old Testament was sup­ plemented by their dispensation, for Muslims it was replaced—an altogether different situation. Muslims were therefore not interested in the Hebrew lan­ guage or in the Hebrew text, but even so there was a considerable interest in the supplementary information which Jewish scholars were able to provide con­ cerning certain personalities and certain episodes mentioned in the Qur’an. There was sometimes an element of suspicion towards this Jewish material; the word Isra¯‘ı¯lıyya¯t, meaning material derived from Jewish sources, sometimes acquired the meaning of superstitious nonsense. — Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans, 320

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘Isra’iliyyat’ and explains its ambivalent valence — useful term for the Islam-West representation cluster.
• XREF: connects to: Christianity incorporated the Hebrew Bible while Islam supplanted both Jewish and Christian scripture; Whether a religion’s founder defeated or lost to Jews shaped its Jews policy; Religious othering of Jews and Muslims has historically been intertwined. (+6 more)
• yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: Christianity incorporated the Hebrew Bible while Islam supplanted both Jewish and Christian scripture; Whether a religion’s founder defeated or lost to Jews shaped its Jews policy; Religious othering of Jews and Muslims has historically been intertwined. (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Christian depictions of Islam in both conventions derive from Christian perceptions of Judaism #complicates (0.72) — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 234