The easiest, most accessible critique of the book (at least in terms of secondary literature) is that it is essentially a rehash of Samuel Huntington's "clash of Civilisations" thesis.

The antagonism that the author has towards Islam is not something that automatically disqualifies the legitimacy of his writing, but it does explain his simplistic and selective reading of history. A reading that neither engages in any meaningful way with contemporary scholarship nor is particularly original in its thesis or research.

Any of the numerous scholarly critiques of Huntington's work should be a sufficient dismissal of Ibrahim.

Essentially: rather than approach violence committed by Muslims as a complex social, historical and geopolitical phenomenon, it looks to a selective reading of Muslim texts/jurisprudence to argue that the primary cause of conflict involving Muslims is an unceasing and irrational thirst for conquest.

To explain the many moments in the past of cooperation, syncretism... or just any failure of all Muslims to be raving killers at all times this approach depends on a kind of "no true Muslim" fallacy.

Rule 1: Real Muslims thirst for blood. Rule 2: if you find a Muslim who doesn't thirst for blood, refer to Rule 1.

This throws up many contradictions, even in the case of atrocities at the hands of Muslims: if Islamic law is both monolithic and determinitive of all Muslim behavior, then the failure of some Muslim soldiers to abide by the extensive Muslim scholarship regarding legitimate combatants demands explanation.

That's not even to get into the fact that Ibrahim's own origin is an awkward thing to explain given that he is an Egyptian copt: a Christian group that, despite numerous instances of persecution, survived as a majority in Egypt for many centuries after the coming of Islam, and then as a minority until now. It is also difficult to explain the reasons for that early Christian majority taking such an active role in warfare against their co-religionists.

I would argue that those most likely to support the idea of an eternal civilisational conflict are those invested on either side of current conflicts. There's a reason that Osama bin Laden endorsed Huntington's thesis so wholeheartedly! Ibrahim's work is, as history is, an intervention. In this case it is an intervention in favour of viewing Muslims and Islam first and foremost through the lens of antagonism. It is thus not only a self-fulfilling prophecy, it also advocates for the flaw with which he brands Muslims.