Medieval Christians missed that Islamic concubinage was legally regulated, not licensed promiscuity
Evidence
Summing up, we may say that the institution of concubinage, naturally enough, was misunderstood. There was widespread a belief in a Qur’anic text which allowed a man to do as he likes with his own; there was little realisation that it was regulated by law, and not a licensed promiscuity. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 779
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
Related
- Medieval Christians misread Islamic concubinage as unregulated promiscuity (similarity 0.93)
- Medieval Christians could imagine no middle ground between Christianity and licence (similarity 0.85)
- Christians framed Islam as a religion built on sexual licence (similarity 0.84)
- Medieval Christian writers saw captive concubinage as Islam’s gravest offense (similarity 0.82)
- Medieval Christian shock targeted Islamic toleration of sins more than the sins themselves (similarity 0.80)
- Medieval Christian polemicists fixated on Islam’s legal theory while knowing nothing of its practice (similarity 0.80)
- Medieval polemic treated Muslim sexuality as a symptom of a deeper spiritual laxity (similarity 0.80)
- Medieval Christians avoided studying Islamic ritual because it drew no easy condemnation. (similarity 0.79)
- Medieval Western critics attacked Islamic law’s theoretical allowances, not actual Muslim practice (similarity 0.79)
- Medieval Christian polemic distorted Qur’anic texts with minimal inaccuracy (similarity 0.79)
- Some medieval Christians conceded the Qur’an forbids sodomy (similarity 0.79)
- Medieval Christians treated Qur’anic Paradise as proof of Islam’s invalidity (similarity 0.78)