Medieval Latin Christians distrusted Arabic Christian sources despite citing them as authoritative

Evidence

Treatment and substance in the summula are traditionally Christian, but it is characteristically Western in presentation; there is nothing that an Oriental Christian could have written.? Occasionally it seems to summarise, but more generally it ignores, the wealth of material to be found in the Risalah, which in Peter of Toledo’s unabridged version belonged to the same corpus and normally the same manuscript. It is not likely that the author of the swmmula did not know it; the presumption is that he felt that Latin and Greek sources were more reliable than Arabic ones, even Christian Arabic ones. This contrasts with San Pedro, who referred to the pseudonymous Christian author of the Risalah, ‘Alquindus’, as authoritative and knowledgeable, precisely because he wrote in Arabic; in practice, however, he ignored him as completely as the author of the summula did. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1287

Treatment and substance in the summula are traditionally Christian, but it is characteristically Western in presentation; there is nothing that an Oriental Christian could have written.? Occasionally it seems to summarise, but more generally it ignores, the wealth of material to be found in the Risalah, which in Peter of Toledo’s unabridged version belonged to the same corpus and normally the same manuscript. It is not likely that the author of the swmmula did not know it; the presumption is that he felt that Latin and Greek sources were more reliable than Arabic ones, even Christian Arabic ones. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1287

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the broader field of medieval Christian-Islamic polemic and how textual authority was granted or denied based on language of origin — echoes themes in the Cluniac corpus literature.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1287