Religious polemic repels the home audience more than the described adversary

Evidence

Like earlier hostile biographies of Muhammad (John of Damascus, the Risâlat al-Kindî., Theophanes, or the Historia de Mahometh pseudopropheta) the four twelfth-century texts are based on deliberate distortions of Muslim traditions. Here, however, the Muslim tradition is more distant and the distortion more marked; these are texts meant to denigrate Islam to readers that were unlikely ever to meet a Muslim, not to dhimmis who had daily contact with Muslims. The authors are thus freer both to make Muhammad conform to the typological image of a heresiarch and to paint him in vivid colors as a scoundrel. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 749 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

But we have also seen that such lofty goals are not a necessary condition for a discussion to remain meaningful. In some circumstances, one is not discussing for the person with whom one is discussing at all, but for listeners or fellow readers. Perhaps one can shake a firmly established belief system a bit, sow a first seed of doubt, let a first breath of fresh air into a previously closed thought bubble. The success in this case will be seen much later, maybe not even by oneself. — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 800 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Anti-Quran polemics were crafted for Christian audiences rather than actual Muslims; Religious disputation could itself be framed as defensive aggression — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 673; Debates with believers often target bystanders, not the interlocutor — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice: How to Communicate…, 800 (+4 more)

Related

• Anti-Islamic polemic intensified when written for audiences far from Muslims (similarity 0.87)
• Christian anti-Islamic polemic targeted Christian readers, not Muslims (similarity 0.87)
• Medieval anti-Islamic polemics aimed to fortify Christians rather than convert Muslims (similarity 0.85)
• Mediaeval anti-Islamic polemics convinced neither Muslims nor Christians (similarity 0.85)
• Medieval Christian polemics against Islam really targeted domestic heresies, not Muslims (similarity 0.84)
• Medieval disputation records were largely constructed strawman debates (similarity 0.84)
• Anti-Islamic polemic was shaped to repel Christians, not Muslims (similarity 0.83)
• The claim that Muslims refuse to dispute became Christian dogma (similarity 0.82)
• Medieval polemic attacked Muslim aspects that scandalized Christian observers (similarity 0.82)
• Christian polemists preferred their own readings over traditional Islamic interpretation (similarity 0.82)
• Vincent’s anti-Islamic method was data-driven rather than argumentative (similarity 0.82)
• Christian polemics against Muhammad aimed to reassure Christians, not convert Muslims (similarity 0.82)
• Medieval audiences preferred Islam accounts easier to ridicule over accurate ones (similarity 0.82)
• Medieval Christian polemic invented a silent Muslim opponent who never objected (similarity 0.82)
• Polemical literature served as in-group apologetics rather than inter-faith debate (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Anti-Islamic polemic intensified when written for audiences far from Muslims #corroborates (0.95) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 749
• Anti-Quran polemics were crafted for Christian audiences rather than actual Muslims #corroborates (0.92)
• Debates with believers often target bystanders, not the interlocutor #corroborates (0.78) — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 800
• Religious disputation could itself be framed as defensive aggression #expands (0.72) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 673
• Religious polemic uses enemies’ moral example as a mirror for self-criticism #exemplifies (0.70)
• Medieval polemic debates aimed to display rather than test Christian truth #contradicts (0.70) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1470