Representations of Islam ignored Muslim self-understanding and resisted factual correction

Evidence

The invariable tendency to neglect what the Qur’an meant, or what Muslims thought it meant, or what Muslims thought or did in any given circumstances, necessarily implies that Qur’anic and other Islamic doctrine was presented in a form that would convince Christians; and more and more extravagant forms would stand a chance of acceptance as the distance of the writers and public from the Islamic border increased. It was with very great reluctance that what Muslims said Muslims believed was accepted as what they did believe. There was a Christian picture in which the details (even under the pressure of facts) were abandoned as little as possible, and in which the general outline was never abandoned. There were shades of difference, but only with a common framework. All the corrections that were made in the interests of an increasing accuracy were only a defence of what had newly been realised to be vulnerable, a shoring up of a weakened structure. Christian opinion was an erection which could not be demolished, even to be rebuilt. — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 166

Categorization

• XREF: This ‘self-reinforcing image that resists facts’ mechanism underpins hegemonic representation — connects to Gramsci’s common sense and to how later Islamophobia discourse will dismiss counter-evidence. — connects to: Ketton deliberately obscured Islam’s claim to universal prophethood; Scholarly polemic failed because it never spoke in terms Muslims could recognize; Vincent’s anti-Islamic method was data-driven rather than argumentative (+2 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 166