The field of Middle East studies continues to be dominated by a paradigm rooted in West/East comparisons. Despite some progress in the field following the post-colonial criticisms of the last few decades, the comparative paradigm remains evident in the researchers' topic choices. This paper will examine several works of note that have been published in the last few years and which have garnered much scholarly and media attention. It will show how the comparative mindset continues to ask 'what went wrong', extending this question into political, economic, institutional and social studies. The focus will be on the studies by Blaydes and Chaney (2011) and Chaney (2011). Both studies are serious scholarly works of political science, and have received widespread academic and media attention, focusing on 'divergence' between feudal Europe and medieval Islam. It will be shown that a careful study of the history of the period in question seriously challenges the arguments presented by the two papers, and that introducing other factors, including tribal society, produce a richer explanation for the observed phenomena. It will be shown that the studies in themselves are good articulations of political science, but suffer from the inherent limitations of the West/East comparative or divergence models. It will be shown that studies based on comparative or divergence models allows scholarship in the field to substitute broad readings of the region and its history in place of in-depth familiarity with its history, ultimately reinforcing the wider narrative hostile to Islam and the Middle East.