Mediaeval authors often deliberately chose the worst accounts of Muhammad.
Evidence
The establishment of Islamic power by violence and fraud, by battle, banditry and assassination and by the authority of pretended visions; the intimate and often sordid details of the Prophet’s personal relations with his family; in these cases also the picture was delineated by selecting just those facts that suited it, and ignoring all others. In war, unprotected by angels, Muhammad suffered the ordinary vicissitudes to which soldiers and highwaymen, but not prophets, are liable, and he paid the final debt of humanity more cheaply than he deserved. This is the verdict of the more moderate writers; unfair though it is, it is closer to reality than Muhammad, Cardinal or Mage, or Muhammad devoured by swine. At the worst there was the assertion of the fantastic, and its repetition without discrimination; at the best there was the selection of only those facts that served the purpose of controversy. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1354 (
#corroborates, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Even moderate medieval Christian writers distorted Muhammad by cherry-picking facts — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1354; Christian polemicists knowingly distorted Muhammad’s biography to fit Antichrist archetypes; Even well-informed medieval authors chose implausible stories when framing Muslims (+2 more)
Related
- Even moderate medieval Christian writers distorted Muhammad by cherry-picking facts (similarity 0.93)
- Even ‘moderate’ medieval biographers of Muhammad selected only polemic-serving facts (similarity 0.89)
- Medieval Christian writers uniformly stressed Muhammad’s orphaned poverty (similarity 0.89)
- Medieval audiences preferred Islam accounts easier to ridicule over accurate ones (similarity 0.87)
- Even factually accurate Christian accounts distorted Islam through selective emphasis (similarity 0.86)
- Medieval Christians chose distorted Islam stories even when accurate sources existed (similarity 0.86)
- Medieval Christian writers sometimes preserved authentic Islamic legends about Muhammad (similarity 0.86)
- Even well-informed medieval authors chose implausible stories when framing Muslims (similarity 0.86)
- Medieval Christian polemicists fabricated absurdly distorted biographies of Muhammad (similarity 0.85)
- Medieval Christian writers widely understood Muhammad as merely a prophet (similarity 0.85)
- Medieval anti-Islamic polemic could work from accurate hadith rather than fabricated detail (similarity 0.84)
- Factual corrections to Christian anti-Islamic polemic only patched a weakened doctrinal structure (similarity 0.84)
- Medieval Christians actively preferred false anti-Muhammad accounts over true ones (similarity 0.84)
- Christian polemicists omitted Muhammad’s peaceful conquests to portray him as a robber (similarity 0.84)
- Medieval polemicists quietly dropped claims lacking cross-tradition confirmation (similarity 0.83)
Broader Connections
- Even moderate medieval Christian writers distorted Muhammad by cherry-picking facts
#corroborates(0.90) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1354 - Even well-informed medieval authors chose implausible stories when framing Muslims
#corroborates(0.85) - Christian polemicists knowingly distorted Muhammad’s biography to fit Antichrist archetypes
#expands(0.78) - Even factually accurate Christian accounts distorted Islam through selective emphasis
#corroborates(0.75) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1357 - Medieval crusade propaganda recycled hostile legends about Muhammad for effect
#expands(0.72)