Masta Bater let's loose, shoots wide
Hey Masta Bater stop dissing my belief system - especially since you know f-all other than what your bigotry allows. Poor lad.
Mohammad was not a warlord. He had a fortune prior to teaching/passing on the mesage of Islam. Once he started his 'mission' he ended up spending or giving it all away. He lived poor and died that way. He allowed the Muslims to hijack caravans of Meccan merchants - the same people who had abused, killed and stolen from Muslims. It was a 'strategy of war'. However, he also gave back goods when asked, on a number of occasions. Despite the major differences between him and the Meccans (including his relatives), despite their then disbelief in his message, they still titled him "The Truthful" because even his enemies never knew him to lie. Read a Seerah (biography) of the Prophet.
With respect to : "wrote down in his "Holy" book (that millions, if not billions of backward-folks follow) to "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them",". What a load of bollocks. Perhaps you are refering to Ch 2 v 291. Please read http://quran.com/2/190-194 for more context. I've seen these verses used to suggest, by non-Muslims, to mean go out and kill Christians. Stupid. All verses along these lines refer to the Munafiq (hypocrites) and Mushrik (polytheists) who oppressed and fought the Muslims, even under a treaty. Muslims are allowed to fight back unless/until the other sues for peace. The Quran then says the Muslims would be transgressors if they continue to fight after that. Muhammad couldn't read/write BTW. If you have any problems with this, please feel free to quote and reference chapter and verse.
All Muslims expect/hope to go to paradise. The (hoor-a-leen), "fair, wide-eyed maidens" are a pretty good added bonus. The little boys you mentioned are akin to cherubim, nothing sexual, you dirty little k****-fiddler you. Slaying and being slain are not a requirement. Do you honestly think the majority or even minority of Muslims go about killing people?
Your understanding of 4 witnesses is similarly incorrect. If anyone accuses a woman of adultery then they are required to produce 4 witnesses to the act of intercourse itself and if they cannot, then the accuser is considered a liar and should be lashed and his/her witness cannot be accepted in a court again. http://quran.com/24/4-7 "And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses - lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient,".
Your last example regarding the girl; I won't comment as I don't know the case but - I feel it is terribly wrong to apply law in that manner. The Shari approach and the last part of the quote above is "And the fifth [oath will be] that the curse of Allah be upon him if he should be among the liars.". In a dispute, both parties can invoke a vow that they are telling the truth and the other party is lying - then the court is required to free them, since Allah knows the truth between them. Sharia is not just about punishment but contracts, child support, etc etc - think all of Brit statute law.
Finally, I may be wrong. No deity but I live my life in an ethical, moral way and when I die - nothing. No better or worse off. Or I'm right, in which case a couple of "hoor-a-leen" and cool condo in paradise. For you M Bater, you need option 1 to be right :)