For some reason everyone forgets that the Spanish monarchs who funded Columbus had just reconquered their own land which had been colonized for centuries by foreign invaders.

Not mentioning the reconquista is historical laziness.

The conquering of the Americas and the mass evangelization of Christianity into the new world is directly due to Muhammed and his conquests and their descendants.

Oddly there are those that argue the Reconquista is more of a 19th Century construct:

    The linear approach to the origins of a Reconquista taken in early twentieth-century historiography is complicated by a number of issues. [.. etc.]

    The period is seen today to have had long episodes of relative religious coexistence and tolerance. The idea of a continuous Reconquista has been challenged by modern scholars.

    The consolidation of the modern idea of a "Reconquista" is inextricably linked to the foundational myths of Spanish nationalism in the 19th century, associated with the development of a Centralist, Castilian, and staunchly Catholic brand of nationalism, evoking nationalistic, romantic and sometimes colonialist themes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista

Regardless of how we in the modern world think of as "the Reconquista" the question remains whether Spain at the time colonised the New World because for long periods of time Christians and Muslims peacefully coexisted and now that Muslims had been ejected it was "directly due to Muhammed and his conquests and their descendants" that Spain continued to do unto others what Islam was alleged to have done to them.

> alleged

really?

Like the US was allegedly colonized by English colonists?