Medieval canonists set Jews apart from Muslims by their prophesied conversion

Evidence

Holcot distinguishes between infidels (pagans, Jews, Muslims, idolators, heretics). Those that submit to the Church may be tolerated like the Gabaonites (AV: Gibeon), as hewers of wood and drawers of water, provided there be no contumelia Creatoris, and in the hope of their conversion. Muslims who do not submit qualify as rebels and persecutors, heretics par excellence. It is lawful and sometimes meritorious to attack them with the prior authority of the Church — ‘to despoil them and kill them and devote their goods to the faithful’. Some Jews must be left unkilled to fulfil the prophecy of the final conversion of a remnant, but this does not apply to Muslims who have unjustly occupied the land promised to Abraham and his seed, and other Christian lands, by force, and who kill missionaries who attack Islam. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1820

Categorization

• XREF: Directly speaks to Anidjar’s Jew/Arab genealogy: Muslims, unlike Jews, are denied even the provisional toleration of hewers-of-wood status and become ‘heretics par excellence’ — killable. This is raw evidence of the theological mechanism by which Islam was excluded from the West’s economy of tolerance.
• SEED: The asymmetry — Jews spared for a prophesied remnant conversion, Muslims not — is a concrete medieval precedent for how Islam, not Judaism, gets cast as the West’s unassimilable outside.
• DEEPTHINKING: The passage shows tolerance itself was always conditional and repressive (toleration as subordination, ‘hewers of wood’), and that the line distinguishing tolerated infidels from killable ones was drawn through a theological economy of conversion — a dense and paradigm-relevant mechanism.