Scholarly polemic failed because it never spoke in terms Muslims could recognize

Evidence

Argument taken from Scripture and argument about Scripture based upon a peculiar interpretation of the Qur’an were unlikely to impress Muslims at all. We shall see that this was also true of much historical analysis of the Prophet’s life. It is only in the field of moral philosophy that arguments were based on common ground, and the same weakness appears there, when data were defined by Christians without proof of their validity, still less of their acceptability by Muslims. We may say that it was absurd to insist on the absence of miracles in Islam, and yet to refuse to take seriously the Qur’anic argument that they were not needed, or that the Qur’an’s own inspiration was self-evident. If we say this we criticise anachronistically; our circumstances, which make this possible, are different. At that time in Europe too great an effort was required to understand the unfamiliar; and in Asia and Africa the same was true of Muslims. Common ground between Christian and Muslim, either to understand each other or to find mutually acceptable premises to justify rejection, was rarely sought, and, when sought, was sought half-heartedly and generally without success. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 448 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

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 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Lull never sincerely engaged actual Muslim objections to the Trinity; Medieval polemicists ignored known facts to fabricate Muslim heretical intent; Christian polemicists never consulted Muslims about actual Muslim beliefs — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1439 (+5 more)

Related

• Medieval Christian polemic offered no common ground that could persuade Muslims. (similarity 0.90)
• Christian polemicists never consulted Muslims about actual Muslim beliefs (similarity 0.88)
• Medieval Christians weaponized accurate Islamic learning for polemics (similarity 0.88)
• Medieval polemicists distinguished what Muslims believed from what they only thought they believed. (similarity 0.87)
• Lull never sincerely engaged actual Muslim objections to the Trinity (similarity 0.86)
• Polemical scholars adopted textual accuracy only as a tactical weapon against Islam (similarity 0.86)
• Christian polemists preferred their own readings over traditional Islamic interpretation (similarity 0.86)
• Medieval polemicists quietly dropped claims lacking cross-tradition confirmation (similarity 0.86)
• Medieval Christians polemicists routinely conflated the Qur’an with reported sayings of Muhammad (similarity 0.85)
• Medieval interreligious polemics operated without shared evidentiary premises (similarity 0.85)
• Medieval polemicists ignored known facts to fabricate Muslim heretical intent (similarity 0.85)
• Medieval polemicists recycled general accusations of Muslim vice without personal knowledge (similarity 0.85)
• Medieval writers ignored Islamic ritual because praising it served no polemic purpose (similarity 0.84)
• Medieval Christian polemic against Islam was ineffective self-consolation since Muslims never engaged it (similarity 0.84)
• Medieval Christian polemic interpreted Qur’anic texts as nastily as possible (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Medieval Christian polemic offered no common ground that could persuade Muslims. #corroborates (0.92) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 448
• Representations of Islam ignored Muslim self-understanding and resisted factual correction #corroborates (0.90) — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 166
• Medieval Christian-Muslim disputation mostly argued from premises neither side shared #expands (0.88)
• Medieval Christian knowledge systems failed to explain or influence Islam #corroborates (0.85) — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 168
• Christian polemicists never consulted Muslims about actual Muslim beliefs #corroborates (0.82) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1439
• Medieval polemicists ignored known facts to fabricate Muslim heretical intent #qualifies (0.78)
• Mediaeval anti-Islamic polemics convinced neither Muslims nor Christians #qualifies (0.75)