They both claim Abraham as a forefather and as a correct worshipper of the correct deity. And they claim Abraham to be a 18/19th century BCE figure.
years respectively after the Bronze Age ended.
The Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 (during medieval times). If you posit that as the superstructural founding of what eventually morphed into the modern (parliamentary monarchical) English, and then British states, would you still refer to the 21st century UK as a medieval nation state?
and in part because it was ignored/violated by King John (and later replaced by new Magna Cartas in '16 and '17, and also '25).
Anyways, if that were to be a wrong term for the current UK gov, it would be because of aspects of that form of rule which have been formally changed over time -- but there would still be a degree of truth to it since the UK has not adopted a wholly new written constitution/form of government since then -- evolution instead of revolution. Are all humans African apes? Yes, and no. Is today's UK a medieval nation state? No, and yes.
The more relevant issue, IMO, is that Abraham isn't just held up as an origin point. He is held up as correctly worshipping/behaving member in his context/time of the religion by that religion.
If that guy was a bronze age guy, and the religion says he was one of them, then the religion is that old, according to that religion. If they draw the through line, then so be it. We can call it what they say it is.
so many of the foundational beliefs and dogma for christians and muslims were added in over 1200 to over 1800 years after the Bronze age ended, and in the case of Islam closing in on 2500 years or so after Abraham walked the earth
Before Noah, even:
The point being: Tubal-Cain didn't exist. Abraham didn't exist. They were made up as origin stories, by people living in the Iron Age.
significant than the crown of monotheism worn by that Abraham fellow.