the American War Between the States (to even call it a civil war is inaccurate, Woods says) was not principally about slavery, Abraham Lincoln was no friend to the slaves.

If anyone could expand on why these claims are made it would be appreciated. Assuming he's arguing states rights and that the Confederacy, as a sovereign body, engaged in external rather than civil war, but I have no interest in paying for the racist's book.

The author of your cited book claims to be a history grad of Columbia U. Be fun to see a CU historian's review. Even the Weekly Standard laughs this off.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/incorrect-history/article/6456

My local library had a copy of the guide to Islam and the Crusades. While my reading in Islam is not extensive enough to explain why the authors arguments were racist oversimplifications, I can talk more about his arguments on the Crusades.

The section on the crusades brings up the arguments of medieval chroniclers of the Crusades who attempted to justify the military conquest of the middle east. The author makes no distinction between propaganda and historical arguments, instead presenting them side by side in an attempt to paint Muslims in the worst possible light. He then goes on to take the same sources and arguments against Christian violence and refer to it as "rhetorical flourish".

The arguments in the book are Islamophobic and racist, based upon profound misunderstandings of Islam, Muhammad, medieval Christianity, and how to read historical sources.

Could you please link examples?