Later polemicists distorted early scholarly accounts of Islam for propaganda purposes

Evidence

Pedro’s reasonably scientific account of the Islamic view was given a widening publicity, exemplified by the Anonymous Minorita, which omits his rationalised explanations and Christian criticism, however, as do the Legenda Aurea and Peter de Pennis. Marino Sanudo, explicitly citing Pedro as his authority, paraphrased both of the relevant paragraphs of his source in one clear and consecutive passage. He ‘improved’ the source, suppressing Pedro’s unambiguous admission that Muhammad himself abolished the idol-worship that he found, so far as he was able; and he introduced the motif by which the lapidation became a deliberate form of Venereal worship. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1208

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the pattern of ‘improving’ sources for polemic value seen in medieval interfaith intellectual disputes more broadly. — connects to: The fourfold prophecy tests were deliberately tailored to condemn Muhammad; Polemics could condemn a rival religion using only its own scriptures; Polemical scholars adopted textual accuracy only as a tactical weapon against Islam (+1 more)