Twelfth-century Latin lives of Muhammad were really about homegrown heresy anxieties, not Islam.

Evidence

None of the four authors uses the term Antichrist to describe Muhammad, and not one of them has him claim to be messiah or predict he will resurrect. All portray him as a heresiarch and false preacher, showing how much all four are preoccupied with the issues of reform and heresy closer to home. Twelfth-century Europe was crawling with preachers who claimed to be inspired by God and exhorted their listeners to return to an earlier, purer faith. Some of these preachers were hailed as reformers by Popes and bishops; others were condemned as heretics. How was one to tell the difference? Hagiographers and heresiologists tried to grapple with this question. All four authors insist on the spiritual heritage of Muhammad: while he himself claims affinity to Moses and Christ, the authors assert his affinity with the great heresiarchs of old, in particular Arius and Nestorius. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 781

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the broader theme of how cultures project their own anxieties onto the ‘other’ — echoes Edward Said’s orientalism and the modesty-panics article where moral panics track class/identity politics more than the stated object.
• SEED: Angle: portrait of Muhammad as heresiarch — how medieval Christian authors used Muhammad as a screen for worrying about their own schismatics, a pattern visible whenever an outsider figure gets drafted into internal debates.
• DEFINE: Explains the concept of heresiarch (a founding heresy leader) and how Arius and Nestorius served as template villains.