Medieval polemicists gave Muhammad a death matching their view of his moral uncleanness.

Evidence

A mass of literature gave Muhammad a very much worse, and highly melodramatic death, one that now seems wholly ridiculous. A reader of mediaeval writings comes incidentally across references to the Prophet’s shameful death. These take it for granted that he knows what this means - that Muhammad was eaten by dogs, or that he was eaten, or suffocated, by pigs. Thus Alan of Lille referred to Muhammad’s monstrous life, more monstrous sect, most monstrous death; he believed him to have been devoured by dogs. Pigs were more popular; Guibert believed in them and so did some of the authors who reproduced the Corozan text. Gerald of Wales and Higden added that this happened when he was in a drunken stupor, and Gerald commented, ‘since he taught uncleanness and shame, it was by pigs, which are considered unclean animals, that he was devoured’. Ludolf said that he was seized by an epileptic fit in the desert, and just that he was devoured by wild beasts. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 601

Categorization

• XREF: Death as cosmic-justice matching moral character: echoes the ‘fitting punishment’ logic in the Arab historian traditions and in Dante’s contrapasso. — connects to: Medieval polemic assigned Muhammad a death by pigs reflecting his supposed teaching of uncleanness