Islamic refusal to dispute likely stemmed from caution, not fear of reason

Evidence

(Itin. xxvii) refused to eat when food was prepared for them in the houses of Muslims in which they were guests, it is implied, not only that the Latins rejected overtures of friendship, but that their talk with Muslims was never acrimonious enough to cause bad feeling, as it certainly would have, if a fraction of the Disputatio had been repeated. … The Christians did not claim that this was a dispute. As far as the Muslims were concerned, the friars were working, with permission, for charitable objects. It is likely to have been an occasion when both sides wished to avoid controversy, and spoke of things they expected to agree about. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 2134 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: A Muslim character’s refusal to explain can be a political contestation, not mere rigidity; Refusing to narrate Muslim experience can itself constitute latent Islamophobia — Peter Morey, Islamophobia and the Novel, 379; The claim that Muslims refuse to dispute became Christian dogma (+3 more)

Broader Connections