"who your Oaths give access over" vs "right hand possess"

[Angrboda]

I'm gonna call bullshit on this one.  At the very least, if it is a fallacy, you can explain why the logic is invalid.

It's a fake mimic and is not engaging the person's actual evidence.

No, it's a reductio ad absurdum argument. The logic is fine. You just don't like the conclusion. The only person not engaging is you. I can engage your evidence all day long, as long as I can provide similar evidence for Christianity, the argument is sound. It has nothing to do with being a "fake mimic," whatever the hell that means. If the evidence for Christianity is comparable to the evidence you have provided for Islam, then the argument succeeds. You are claiming that it is not. The burden of proof is yours. So get to work.