[the-printer]

> from a scripture point of view, they are both Abrahamic religions, use a book as the center of wisdom, buildings to house worship.. but let's set that huge likeness aside.

If we were to refer to scripture we would find that the concept of an "Abrahamic religion" is non-existent, and the presence of scripture itself as a primary fundamental source and houses of worship do little by way of comparing any religion.

The rest of the similarities that you list are useful, but it's unlikely that the valuable context that can be gleaned from any sociopolitical similitudes in retrospect were prioritized when the events in question were taking place. The glaring theological differences between Islam and Christianity were the defining factor as to why the Muslim conquests began at all. We can view sociopolitical similarities as non-trivial, but in respect to the initial impetus (the spread of the Islam), they become trivial. This isn't to discount any likenesses that can be found across certain structures within these regions or how these structures were affected as regions spread and interacted with each other, but the significance varies and how each region interpreted these similarities at that time likely varied as well. In the context of the Islamic conquests as a whole, the belief itself is paramount in beginning any discussions about them.

The point that I'm trying to make is that on the whole, i.e. beginning from as early as 629, how the Islamic conquests can be perceived is exceptional compared to other conflicts that took place involving Western European nations, in particular the conflicts that took place between Western European nations themselves. This exception could be compared to that of how the Islamic conquests of European territories could be perceived from the perspective of the Islamic states as opposed to the early conflicts that took place in Syria/Yemen, for example.

"Likeness" is equally nuanced, is often forsaken for opposing motives and is worthless unless it is predicated by shared principles, especially at the scale that we are discussing.

[mistrial9]

it feels like where you are going in this exchange is "pro-polarization" due to some inherent greatness of Islam or something like that. You can talk to others not me if that is the rhetoric now.

[the-printer]

I apologize for the long replies. I promise you it doesn’t feel like so much is being typed in the text editing box before I post.

I'm not ashamed to say that my belief is that Islam is inherently great. I'm sure you have your own set of convictions that are guiding your arguments.

My view in this thread is that the perception of the Islamic conquests in Europe are exceptional in the way that they may be perceived due the differences between the Muslim world and Western Europe during that period of time and that this perception may carry over and affect how the relationship between the Muslim world and Western Europe is viewed today, especially within the context of what the book Stealing from the Saracens appears to be about and how society may respond to that as well. These differences were initially predicated theologically and more than likely had an influence on how any similarities between the Islamic states and Western European nations were interpreted by them.

Through literary means we can contextualize certain events like what we're discussing in a way that makes the differences less stark and open the door for a more conclusive, reconciliatory perspective but the efficacy of that is subject to the realities of the living human experience. Polarization is a natural characteristic of society. "Social evolution" can do much to make large groups of people alike, but it can also magnify the ways that they aren't. History and the components that make it are as well-retained in the human experience itself as it is within literature and "the pens are lifted and the ink is dried".

If this disturbs you, well...this is the world that we share. Enjoy.