Medieval Christian missionaries ventriloquized even favorable Muslim arguments through their own philosophy

Evidence

Cf. however Muslim participants in other Lullian dialogues (see bibliography). It is true that Lull sometimes allows the Muslim protagonist in a debate actually to defend what Lull knows to be an Islamic theological position (e.g. on the qualities of God), but the reasons he puts into the Muslim’s mouth always fit only his own private philosophical terminology and methods (e.g. Hamar, passim). … Monneret de Villard’s assertion ‘egli lavord sempre direttamente sul testo arabo’ (of the Qur’an) antedates Miss d’Alverny’s discovery that he took all these quotations over from the Contrarietas. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 2133

Categorization

• XREF: Lull putting only his own philosophical idiom into the Muslim’s mouth is a precise medieval instance of what Aziz and Razack describe: ‘the Muslim’ constructed within the West’s own discursive terms.
• QUESTION: The claim that Lull allows Muslims to defend genuinely Islamic positions but only in his own terminology raises the question: did any medieval apologist grant the Islamic position independent rhetorical validity?