Do you have anything to prove to the contrary? We actually talk about the Islamification of Europe on the farms quite frequently.
What are you talking about? Christianity was barely holding on for dear life at the turn of the century and it's just about dead in the west at this point.
It was hanging on for influence and membership, but Christianity wasn't overtaken by lefties. It largely killed itself via social suicide and a long series of conflicts out of which it came out looking the fool.
The left didn't "Kill" Christianity, Christianity failed to adapt and continues to slowly kill itself all of its own violition.
Sure but I'm not sure what you're point is in saying this, just kinda seems like moving the goalpost.
Lies and subterfuge are a key part of war, the Satanic Verses for instance. Claim the key goddesses of a people you need on your side but at the time cannot destroy is accepable, until their usefulness runs out and you are able to destroy them.
Muhammad was a very successful and talented liar, my own opinions on the legitimacy of his religious claims, in his military and economic actions. How can we condemn someone for lying when the Prophet himself indulged constantly? Should his fine example not be suitable for emulation?
No, actually it is, we're explicitly told to grant safe haven to any infidel who doesn't war with us so that we may proselytize to them.
Unless they reject your message, at which point you're commanded to destroy them using any means necessary and expand the Theatre of Islam. Not all Jihad is violent, although it's certainly the one Muhammad approved of and indulged in the most. There's plenty of other ways; Sheikh Muhammad Ayed and others of his school are quite fond of outbreeding the heathen and subverting democratic states for instance, and we can hardly consider his to be a minority opinion.
Same thing ultimately. Crush your enemies, nobody is allowed to exist outside the thumb of Islam.
Islam doesn't give a 'do whatever you like' pass against disbelievers just to be clear, the 'evil deeds' you refer to are specific not arbitrary, and obviously we don't see them as evil because good and evil is based on the dichotomy of absolute monotheism vs polytheism.
Your God is all good, and yet allows; no....Required his devotees to perform evil deeds?
Is he so weak, or is he unable to perform evil deeds? Then he isn't all powerful.
Is he able to do things but requires his devotees to perform evil deeds in his name for pleasure? Then he isn't all good.
Not that I expected a bronze age warlord to really think this out, you really need a good argument when you're a wealthy merchant from a powerful family who will stab the shit out of everyone who disagrees. Not like anything has ever changed.