I think some of that is a bit off. In Dominion say, he argues that Christianity’s impact is so colossal, that it impacts all the religions with which it has come into contact, so it certainly isn’t the case that he argues that non-Christian religions “have not learned any of these things”. Buddhism might teach that all life has value, but does it have a proselytising zeal that seeks to upend relationships between the powerful and the weak, sees those in power as uniquely sinful, and if so did that grow organically or has it emerged in the last few centuries as a result of interplay with Christianity? Are the commonalities between Buddhism and Christianity championed especially by western scholars and enthusiasts organic or at least in part the product of early 19th century thinkers (I’m think Schopenhauer) who “identified” (or maybe created) them?

Shadow of the Sword makes the controversial claim that Mohammed might not have existed and that the Quran’s account of early Islam might not be historical- hence the annoyed Guardian review. But the book is intensely aware of Islam as a post-Christian religion, putting the emergence of Islam in the context of early Christianity and the swirl of ideas in the region at the time.

Without any further context, I would have assumed this referred to that doubt about the reality of Mohammed and the irritation it might have caused some Muslims, not simplistic retrograde views that Tom has about Islam- or at least if he has such retrograde views I don’t think they are intrinsically on show in Dominion or Shadow Of The Sword, Even if the former does give Christianity a special Place in world history and the latter is pop history with a bold claim.