Medieval Christians understood Islam through preexisting biblical categories rather than direct encounter

Evidence

This is why I begin this survey of Christian perceptions of Islam before the rise of Islam. The point is to show how key Latin Christian authors of the seventh century viewed their world: in particular, how they defined the differences between Christian and non-Christians (Jews, pagans, and heretics) and what they saw as their place in history. For when they first meet Muslims they will try to understand their military successes and their religion in terms familiar to them, to fit Islam into already existing Christian categories by portraying them, variously, as a divinely sent punishment, as pagan idolaters, as Christian heretics, as followers of Satan, or as devotees of Antichrist. When these Christian authors wish to understand Islam, they will turn only rarely to Muslims themselves, normally preferring those time-honored authorities, the Bible and the church fathers. Medieval Christians, with very few exceptions, did not use the words “Muslim” or “Islam”; instead they used ethnic terms such as “Arab,” “Saracen,” “Ishmaelite.” Information about these peoples could be found in the venerable books of old. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 88

When looking at Muhammad and his Muslim followers, they would try to figure out where they fit in the well-established religious spectrum: obviously not Catholic Christians and apparently not Jews, were they the followers of Antichrist? Were they heretics? Were they pagans? Why had God permitted their tremendous conquests? What role had he chosen for them in Christian history? Truth, they thought, was to be found in the books of respected Christian authorities. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 162

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Edward Said’s Orientalism and to the broader theme of how cultures assimilate the unfamiliar through inherited frameworks, similar to the grafting/narrative metaphor in ‘Grafting & Growth.’ — connects to: By 1250 the unity-of-God doctrine was common Christian knowledge about Islam; Christian polemists preferred their own readings over traditional Islamic interpretation; Medieval Christians weaponized accurate Islamic learning for polemics (+7 more)
• DEFINE: Defines the distinction between ‘Muslim/Islam’ as modern terms versus ‘Arab/Saracen/Ishmaelite’ as the ethnic vocabulary medieval Christians actually used.
• ADDENDUM: Relates to ‘Complaints About Immodesty Go Way Back’ in the sense of cross-cultural perception filtered through inherited authority rather than direct observation.
• SEED: Angle: the ‘squeeze into preexisting categories rather than rethink them’ reflex as a template for how modern media frames Islam (terrorism/sectarian/geopolitical boxes) rather than engaging its own categories.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 88; John V. Tolan, Saracens, 162