Medieval Christian polemicists attacked the Qur’an’s Christology as internally inconsistent

Evidence

San Pedro’s account of the miracles of Christ in the Qur’an suggests an appreciative sense of the marvellous: ‘whatever Jesus Christ said, instantly it was so’ - this ‘Muhammad said, and has written in his Qur’an’; but he strongly attacked the Christology of the Qur’an as inconsistent. It made Jesus out to be a man, and yet not to die; made Him holy and sinless, yet supposed that He would allow another to die in His place; made out, in fact, that He was born by the power of God, only to deceive men by this false crucifixion, in a world already full of deceivers. San Pedro was oppressed by the thought of so many lies, of such great heresies in the Qur’an and in the sayings of Muhammad which his followers had collected (hadith); by the thought of the loss of souls of those who died Muslims. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 950

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the broader theme of interfaith encounter and how scripture is read adversarially in controversy — parallels modern apologetics both Christian and Muslim. — connects to: Mediaeval critics mocked the Qur’an’s chapter names as irrational; Christian annotators charged the Quran with self-contradiction on points later seen as mere nuance; Medieval Christian polemic interpreted Qur’anic texts as nastily as possible