Peter of Cluny placed Muhammad in a devil-driven line from Arius to Antichrist

Evidence

Peter sees three great adversaries whom the devil uses to lead Christians astray: Arius, Muhammad, and Antichrist. Each manages to trick his followers into denying Christ’s divinity. It is for this reason, Peter tells us, that he composed his Summa and that he had the entire Toledan corpus translated: “I translated from Arabic into Latin the whole of this sect, along with the execrable life of its evil inventor, and exposed it to the scrutiny of our people, so that it be known what a filthy and frivolous heresy it is” (Summa,§18). — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 844 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Nicetas seems to argue in one chapter that Muhammad’s ‘admission’ of some things out of Scripture implies acceptance of Scripture, and that since he also asserts different things of his own invention of the same God, he makes God either not to exist or to be changeable; the God he speaks of does not accept the Christian Law, and so cannot be the true God; it follows that the God of Muhammad is really a devil. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 59 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Thomas of Pavia has a very remarkable version: Muhammad’s evil counsellor and guide, having taught him his tricks to fool the people, for a final trick stood in a dry well where, being hidden, he could simulate the voice of God. After he had spoken, Muhammad called on everyone to throw a stone into the well, ostensibly to mark the sacred occasion, practically to kill the inconvenient witness whose advice he now no longer needed. This version was not popular during the Middle Ages, but is still alive to-day in Oriental circles of little discrimination that are hostile to Islam. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1895 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Peter of Cluny framed Islam as the sum of all earlier Christian heresies; Peter linked Muhammad with Arius and Antichrist as deniers of Christ’s divinity — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 844; Early Byzantine polemic concluded Muhammad’s God is a devil rather than the true God — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 59 (+17 more)

Broader Connections

• Peter linked Muhammad with Arius and Antichrist as deniers of Christ’s divinity #corroborates (1.00) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 844
• Early Byzantine polemic concluded Muhammad’s God is a devil rather than the true God #complicates (0.80) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 59
• Medieval Christian polemics modeled Muhammad’s life on Christ’s as a deliberate inversion #complicates (0.70) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 496
• Medieval Christian polemic weaponized Muhammad’s unascended body against his prophethood #complicates (0.70)
• Muhammad’s alleged false prophecy legitimized Christian political rule over Muslims #complicates (0.70) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 996
• Medieval polemicists cast Muhammad as a failed Antichrist to explain Islam’s spread #complicates (0.70)
• Peter the Venerable depicted Muhammad as a fraud taught Jewish and heretical fables #complicates (0.70) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 842
• Christian polemic demanded Muhammad’s character be shown incompatible with Revelation #complicates (0.70) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1369
• Medieval anti-Islamic legend cast Muhammad’s revelation as staged deception #complicates (0.70) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1895
• The Crusades introduced the figure of Muhammad as the anti-Christ into European thought #complicates (0.70) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 179
• Muhammad’s biography was framed as the seducer of Christendom #complicates (0.70) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 2106
• Medieval Christians identified Muhammad with Behemoth, Leviathan, and the Antichrist #complicates (0.70)
• Medieval Christian polemicists judged Muhammad by Christian criteria for prophecy #complicates (0.70)
• Peter of Cluny is uniquely traceable because his exact source manuscript survives #complicates (0.70)