Medieval polemicists derived Islam’s violence from Muhammad’s Medina wars

Evidence

Christendom recognised a relationship which aimed primarily at the destruction of Islam, and in which missionary endeavour held a subordinate place. For various reasons, moreover, it was the wish of the Church to reduce communication with Muslims to a minimum. With this in mind we may consider the habitual condemnation of Islam for its inherent violence and for its refusal to allow rational disputation. Christians usually argued from the example and teaching given by Muhammad in his lifetime. His government of the community at Medina and his Wars against the Quraysh and others had a more than episodic significance; from these, it was believed, derived essential parts of his religion, notably the justification and praise of force. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 691 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Even more than San Pedro, Ricoldo summed up the arguments that so many others had used before him. His version of the prophesied fall of Islam was to the effect that Muhammad taught that ‘that religion shall last as long as the victory of its sword shall last’. Islam was the religion of violence and murder: /ex violenta and lex occisionis et mortis. The Qur’an said that there was no compulsion in the religion of God, ‘yet there is no greater compulsion than to compel by killing’. This was one of the contradictions characteristic of the Qur’an; he took up Pedro de Alfonso’s point, and said that the Qur’an, which forbade bitter disputation with men of other religions, yet commanded the death of infidels; in reality God does not love forced service. Compulsion, together with a general approval of murder and robbery, was part of what was carried forward from Muhammad’s personal practice into the future behaviour of Islam. In spite of his own claim to have disputed with Muslims, Ricoldo several times asserted what had now become a Christian dogma, the refusal of Muslims to dispute. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 710 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Norman Daniel has conducted one of the most authoritative studies on the image of Islam generated by the intellectual elite in the West from the early twelfth century to the middle of the fourteenth. His book Islam and the West shows that key among their various lines of attack was the argument that Islam’s revelations were “pseudo-prophecies,” based not only on the authority of Christian scriptures but also on the notion that Muhammad could not be a prophet. Instead, Muhammad was cast as “a low-born and pagan upstart, who schemed himself into power, who maintained it by pretended revelations, and who spread it both by violence and by permitting to others the same lascivious practices he indulged himself.” We see at this stage the association of Islam with violence, a theme that would recur over the centuries. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 66 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Medieval Christian polemicists framed Islam as a religion of compelled violence — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 710; Medieval Christendom framed Islam as inherently violent through Muhammad’s Medinan wars — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 691; Medieval elites first linked Islam and Muhammad to violence and sexual deviance — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 66

Related

• Medieval Christian polemicists framed Islam as a religion of compelled violence (similarity 0.92)
• Medieval Christendom framed Islam as inherently violent through Muhammad’s Medinan wars (similarity 0.90)
• Medieval elites first linked Islam and Muhammad to violence and sexual deviance (similarity 0.88)
• A medieval polemicist conceded that bad Christians violated Gospel pacifism (similarity 0.87)
• Medieval Christian polemicists projected their own violence onto a monolithic Islam to justify crusade (similarity 0.84)
• Medieval Christian polemicists attributed to Muslims arguments the Muslims did not hold. (similarity 0.83)
• Medieval Christian polemicists mined Islamic sources to justify pre-existing accusations against Muhammad. (similarity 0.83)
• Medieval Christian polemic framed Islam alongside heresy and Judaism (similarity 0.83)
• Medieval polemic attacked Muslim aspects that scandalized Christian observers (similarity 0.83)
• Medieval Christian polemics ignored Muhammad’s victories and highlighted only his defeats (similarity 0.83)
• Christians attributed violence to Islam while practicing holy war themselves (similarity 0.83)
• Medieval polemic distorted Islam by omitting its tributary alternative to jihad. (similarity 0.83)
• Christians read Muhammad’s military career as essential to his religion (similarity 0.82)
• Medieval Christian polemicists weaponised Muslims’ own sources against Islam. (similarity 0.82)
• Medieval polemic fused Muhammad’s alleged fraud with violence into one inseparable double crime (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Medieval Christendom framed Islam as inherently violent through Muhammad’s Medinan wars #corroborates (0.98) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 691
• Medieval Christian polemicists framed Islam as a religion of compelled violence #corroborates (0.95) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 710
• Medieval elites first linked Islam and Muhammad to violence and sexual deviance #corroborates (0.85) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 66