Medieval Christian polemicists cast Ali as Muhammad’s spin-doctor of failed resurrection

Evidence

The reprobatio was plain and factual, recounting the deaths in turn of ‘Abdallah and Aminah, the boy’s father and mother. Curiously this work stressed the story which ibn Ishaq tells of the child’s visit to the Ka’bah: … After his mother bore him, she sent to his grandfather ‘Abd al-Muttalib … He came and took Muhammad his (grand)child, and entered his temple with him and adored his God, and gave thanks for such a blessmg given to him, and returned (Muhammad) to his mother. After the death of his mother, however, he stayed with his same grandfather, ‘Abd al-Muttalib, and when he reached the age of eight, that grandfather died. … The reason for telling this episode is obscure; perhaps it was seen as an attempt to emulate the Purification. The contrast between Muhammad and Christ, the thought of Muhammad as a false Christ, were often present in Christian minds. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 496 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Sensing his imminent destruction and knowing that he would in no way be resurrected on his own merit, he predicted that he would be revived on the third day by the angel Gabriel, who was in the habit of appearing to him in the guise of a vulture, as Muhammad himself said. When he gave up his soul to hell, they ordered his body to be guarded with an arduous vigil, anxious about the miracle which he had promised them. When on the third day they saw he was rotting, and determined that he would not by any means be rising, they said the angels did not come because they were frightened by their presence. Having found sound advice—or so they thought— they left his body unguarded, and immediately instead of angels, dogs followed his stench and devoured his flank. Learning of the deed, they surrendered the rest of his body to the soil. And in vindication of this injury, they ordered dogs to be slaughtered every year so that they, who on his behalf deserve a worthy martyrdom here, might share in his merit there. It was appropriate that a prophet of this kind fill the stomach of dogs, a prophet who committed not only his own soul, but those of many, to hell. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 527 (#complicates, via linked claim)

That is particularly exemplified by the stress on such points as the humanity of Muhammad, which were significant only from the Christian point of view. Those things were stressed that appealed to Christians as scandalous, not those that Muslims think important; and in this kind of picture-building exaggerations had an important part. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1472 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Medieval polemicists cast Muhammad as a failed Antichrist to explain Islam’s spread; Medieval Christian polemic dismissed even Muhammad’s good acts as tricks — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 2235; Medieval Christian polemic fabricated Muhammad expecting a third-day resurrection — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 65 (+13 more)

Broader Connections

• Medieval Christian polemics modeled Muhammad’s life on Christ’s as a deliberate inversion #complicates (0.75) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 496
• Medieval Christian polemicists fabricated a grotesque death for Muhammad to discredit him. #complicates (0.75) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 527
• Medieval polemic attacked Muslim aspects that scandalized Christian observers #complicates (0.70) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1472