Female Christian activist attacked at ‘Speakers Corner’ (London)...

[Lord Thesaurian]

BTW the OED defines a paedophile (lets use the correct spelling shall we) as "an adult who is sexually attracted to children". You'd assume someone making such a claim has proof, or faith that the Quran is true.

Most highly educated western scholars who love Islam out of an obligatory, masochistic sense of tolerance probably know that the source material specifying Aisha’s age comes from hadiths, not the Quran, but I suppose the OED didn’t cover that bit of info? As Saint Thomas Aquinas is purported to have said, hominem unius libri timeo. Perhaps if people like that were better educated, they’d be more tolerant and less likely to attack people in the street for telling the truth about Mohammed’s pedophilia. For the religiously inclined who like their prophets scandal-free, consider: Jesus Christ.

[Infidel144]

Its a place for political free speech not roaring and jostling. If you go there looking for a fight I guess like anywhere its possible to find one. That silly little man wasn't preaching the word of God, he was yelling specific insults and kept making physical contact with the young fellow, I have no sympathy for people who try to incite religious hatred like that.

By kept making physical contact with the young fellow, the young fellow whom he dragged to where he was standing, no doubt using The Force, then took the young fellow's hands and put upon them himself, followed by causing the young man to shove him forcefully, twice, including from behind, and then made the young man slap him, twice, including from behind.

Most highly educated western scholars who love Islam out of an obligatory, masochistic sense of tolerance probably know that the source material specifying Aisha’s age comes from hadiths, not the Quran, but I suppose the OED didn’t cover that bit of info?

Correct. Aisha is not mentioned in the Quran, though the Quran does permit marriage to, and intercourse with, the pre-pubescent.

[sumskilz]

Don't the law codes in the Bible allows a man to have sex with his grandmother, niece, I think in some cases daughters and step daughters?

No in all cases, except for a stepdaughter if a man married her, which would probably not have been allowed if her mother was still alive following the precedent of not being able to marry an ex-wife’s sister if the ex-wife is still alive. Which would be legal in most (or all?) modern countries anyway, as far as I know.

Someone trying to argue that sex with a grandmother is not forbidden because it’s not stated explicitly as such, would have to ignore that sex with a grandchild (male or female) is categorized as an explicitly forbidden relationship. For reference, the most comprehensive list of forbidden sexual relationships is Leviticus 18:6-18. Although, it's missing maternal half-sister which is forbidden by Deuteronomy 27:22.

[Cyclops]

No in all cases, except for a stepdaughter if a man married her, which would probably not have been allowed if her mother was still alive following the precedent of not being able to marry an ex-wife’s sister if the ex-wife is still alive. Which would be legal in most (or all?) modern countries anyway, as far as I know.

Someone trying to argue that sex with a grandmother is not forbidden because it’s not stated explicitly as such, would have to ignore that sex with a grandchild (male or female) is categorized as an explicitly forbidden relationship. For reference, the most comprehensive list of forbidden sexual relationships is Leviticus 18:6-18. Although, it's missing maternal half-sister which is forbidden by Deuteronomy 27:22.

There you go, thx for the correction, its been decades since I studied this and the rust is thick.

These interesting and sometimes (currently) distasteful elements of a religious tradition are no reason to reject the entire religious tradition and its followers. I wouldn't denigrate Jesus or his followers for evading liquor licencing laws, disrupting legitimate workplaces or killing Job's family on a dare from Satan. I might use it to question assertions about absolute veracity in the Bible or other unlikely positions, but not to troll someone.

Given its a hot topic, I think its pretty disrespectful for a person to race around buffeting people and hoarsely croaking stuff that's likely to start a fight. Facts may not care about the Ummah's feelings, but I don't think fee speech should be a troll or a bigots' shield either. Of course I live in a socialist dystopia where I need a thinking licence... ;-)

[Prodromos]

The first person to slap the man shouting "Muhammad is a pedophile", does not try to avoid him, but literally approaches the man, lays hands on the man, who turns his back. Said person then shoves the man from behind. Man comes back to where he was and turns away. Said person shoves him again, harder. Man comes back to where he was then the slapping occurs (once from the side and once from behind). The second person to slap the man does so while the man is moving away from the person who first slapped him and the man is half or more turned away from the second assailant, who then tries to "avoid" the man by moving away. Then the man "pursues" him asking "why did you hit me?".
Approaching someone, then laying hands on him, then shoving him (twice) is not trying to avoid him.

Yeah, looks like a clear case of assault to me. But maybe if he'd worn a longer skirt...

[PointOfViewGun]

A mainstream Sunni source:

The only counterarguments I found don’t actually challenge the theological scholarship, but simply appeal to emotion: Mohammed was a good dude and so Aisha must surely have been older because otherwise he was gross and that can’t be. So this isn’t a case of anti-Islamic rhetoric but of apologist revisionism. If people are ashamed of Mohammed’s pedophilia, maybe they shouldn’t be Muslim. That seems like a healthier choice than attacking people in the street for telling the truth.

But you did find more counterarguments that are based on the very same sources that claim Aisha to be 6 at betrothal. It was right there in your own Google search. In fact, you had to pass 3 links in your search which point out differing accounts for Aisha's age to find the link you used. You simply chose to ignore them to provide a deceptive narrative. What this is is basically selective reading. People who want to have a free pass on young girls as well as people who are anti-Islam come together to selectively use sources to make this claim.

From one of those links:

Hazrat Aisha’s age

This hadith cannot be true for several reasons. First, the Prophet could not have gone against the Quran to marry a physically and intellectually immature child. Secondly, the age of Hazrat Aisha can be easily calculated from the age of her elder sister Hazrat Asma who was 10 years older than Hazrat Aisha. Waliuddin Muhammad Abdullah Al-Khateeb al Amri Tabrizi the famous author of Mishkath, in his biography of narrators (Asma ur Rijal), writes that Hazrat Asma died in the year 73 Hijri at the age of 100, ten or twelve days after the martyrdom of her son Abdullah Ibn Zubair. It is common knowledge that the Islamic calendar starts from the year of the Hijrah or the Prophet’s migration from Mecca to Medina.

Therefore, by deducting 73, the year of Hazrat Asma’s death, from 100, her age at that time, we can easily conclude that she was 27 years old during Hijra.

This puts the age of Hazrat Aisha at 17 during the same period. As all biographers of the Prophet agree that he consummated his marriage with Hazrat Aisha in the year 2 Hijri it can be conclusively said that she was 19 at that time and not nine as alleged in the aforementioned hadiths.

Correct. Aisha is not mentioned in the Quran, though the Quran does permit marriage to, and intercourse with, the pre-pubescent.

Nope. No such thing exists in the Quran.

[Lord Thesaurian]

So much copium lol. I referenced the first point directly in the post you responded to. Both points were also addressed in the source I cited which I’m sure you read. And I’ll take commentary from people who study/teach this stuff for a living over some Indian PR group. But it’s always fun to see people lie about their religion in order to defend it.

[PointOfViewGun]

So much copium lol. I referenced the first point directly in the post you responded to. Both points were also addressed in the source I cited which I’m sure you read. And I’ll take commentary from people who study/teach this stuff for a living over some Indian PR group. But it’s always fun to see people lie about their religion in order to defend it.

Interesting straw man. Nobody said you didn't reference your quotes. All points and counter points are referenced. That was never the issue. All of them are authored by people who "study/teach this stuff" as well. It's funny that you talk about lying and copium.

Since you're so fond of the Yaqeen Institute, here is an other article from there:

Aisha (ra): The Case for an Older Age in Sunni Hadith Scholarship

Summary of the research
The preferred opinion based on numerous evidences is that ʿĀisha was born four years before the prophetic mission. And that the Messenger contracted marriage with her in the tenth year of the prophetic mission when she was fourteen years old and three years before the migration. And he consummated the marriage with her near the end of the first year after the migration when she was almost eighteen years old.

The ḥadīth that established the age of ʿĀisha to be six years when the marriage was contracted and nine years when the marriage was consummated has an authentic chain of transmission. However, it contradicts established historical proofs and is, therefore, a discrepant (shādh) report and [should be] interpreted as a mistake.

Scholars have mentioned that when a ḥadīth’s text (matn) contradicts something more reliable from established history then it is rejected because that indicates a flaw due to a mistake by one of the narrators.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Your own article states the hadith in question is authentic, so if you prefer historical revisionism over religious teaching that’s fine by me. I’ve simply refuted your claims that Mohammed’s marriage and sex with a child is false, deceitful or otherwise libelous.

[Cyclops]

Yeah, looks like a clear case of assault to me.

No doubt, the justification in my country (which is also a common law jurisdiction, they must've copied us) is limited to

• Consent;
• Touching in the course of an ordinary social activity;
• Exercising a lawful power of arrest;
• Lawfully correcting a child;
• Self-defence;
• Ejecting a trespasser.

(cut and paste from here)

https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu....s/CCB/4957.htm

The roaring dwarf with poor personal space perception doesn't seem to have given more justification than being an annoying **** and as most of the UK demonstrates, that's not a crime. Unless it was an extended consensual fetish RP "UWU slap me harder daddy". Once again, it is the UK.

But maybe if he'd worn a longer skirt...

You were looking at his legs? You fallen sinner you.

[PointOfViewGun]

Your own article states the hadith in question is authentic, so if you prefer historical revisionism over religious teaching that’s fine by me. I’ve simply refuted your claims that Mohammed’s marriage and sex with a child is false, deceitful or otherwise libelous.

The Hadith that claims Muhammad has the power of 30 lions is also considered authentic. It doesn't mean that pointing out he was a human being is historical revisionism. A Hadith being being considered authentic doesn't make it accurate... You haven't really refuted anything, however, in your attempt to make that claim you have been caught to use false, deceptive and libelous arguments.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The Hadith that claims Muhammad has the power of 30 lions is also considered authentic. It doesn't mean that pointing out he was a human being is historical revisionism. A Hadith being being considered authentic doesn't make it accurate... You haven't really refuted anything, however, in your attempt to make that claim you have been caught to use false, deceptive and libelous arguments.

Rejecting an authentic hadith is widely considered unislamic, which again, is fine by me, but probably not by the sort of folks who assault people for acknowledging Mohamed’s pedophilia. Why laugh at someone when you could easily find yourself in their shoes?

[Infidel144]

Your own article states the hadith in question is authentic, so if you prefer historical revisionism over religious teaching that’s fine by me. I’ve simply refuted your claims that Mohammed’s marriage and sex with a child is false, deceitful or otherwise libelous.

From the quote supplied:
"The ḥadīth that established the age" "has" and "it", this looks as an attempt to suggest a singular hadith. That would be false. As I noted above Aisha's age at time of marriage has multiple attestations through a large number of hadith with separate lines of transmission. This makes the narrations mutawattir, denial of which is considered kufr in the fiqh.
As I also noted above, what the author refers to as "established historical proofs" tend to involve mis-translations (e.g. of Tabari's history), deceit (e.g. splitting of the moon), choosing weaker, broken hadith and ignoring the stronger ones (Asma's age) or ignorant nonsense (carrying water in battles is the same as being a soldier). Or combination of all of them.


As established in Surah Al Azhab (The Allies), after divorce it is permissible to marry again immediately if the marriage was not consummated:
33.49: O you who believe! If you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, there shall be no waitingperiod for you to reckon against them. But provide for them and release them in a fair manner.

As established in Surah Al Baqarah (The Cow), there is a waiting period for women who have been divorced, before they can remarry, if the marriage was consummated:
2.228: Divorced women shall wait by themselves for three courses, and itis not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in their
wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And their husbands have better right to restore them during that time, if they desire to
make peace. [The women] are owed obligations the like of those they owe, in an honorable way. And men have a degree over them, and
God is Mighty, Wise.

This is only relevant to women who menstruate, they have to wait three menstrual cycles before it is permissible to marry again.

This, however, led to a question about those who were not menstruating (but whose husbands had consummated the marriage).

Thus Surah At Talaq (The Divorce) was revealed:
65.4: As for those of your women who no longer await menstruation, if you are unsure, then their waiting period is three months,
as it is for those who are yet to menstruate. But as for those who are pregnant, their term is until they deliver. And whosoever reverences God,
He will appoint ease for his affair.

Older women (i.e. post-menopausal) wait three months rather than three menstrual cycles, as do the young who have not menstruated.

The Quran supports marriage to and consummation of the marriage with pre-pubescent minors.
This is well established in the sharia/fiqh literature, with the limitation being able to bear the penetration (hence Muhammad waited about 3 years after the (contractual) nikah to Aisha at age 6 to (physically) nikah her at age 9).

(This generally holds for both the Sunni and Shia, it does not apply to "My Islam" or its practitioner...)

[Lord Thesaurian]

From the quote supplied:
"The ḥadīth that established the age" "has" and "it", this looks as an attempt to suggest a singular hadith. That would be false. As I noted above Aisha's age at time of marriage has multiple attestations through a large number of hadith with separate lines of transmission. This makes the narrations mutawattir, denial of which is considered kufr in the fiqh.
As I also noted above what the author refers to as "established historical proofs" tend to involve mis-translations (e.g. of Tabari's history), deceit (e.g. splitting of the moon), choosing weaker, broken hadith and ignoring the stronger ones (Asma's age) or ignorant nonsense (carrying water in battles is the same as being a soldier). Or combination of all of them.


As established in Surah Al Azhab (The Allies), after divorce it is permissible to marry again immediately if the marriage was not consummated:
33.49: O you who believe! If you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, there shall be no waitingperiod for you to reckon against them. But provide for them and release them in a fair manner.

As established in Surah Al Baqarah (The Cow), there is a waiting period for women who have been divorced before they can remarry if the marriage was consummated:
2.228: Divorced women shall wait by themselves for three courses, and itis not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in their
wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And their husbands have better right to restore them during that time, if they desire to
make peace. [The women] are owed obligations the like of those they owe, in an honorable way. And men have a degree over them, and
God is Mighty, Wise.

This is only relevant to women who menstruate, they have to wait three menstrual cycles before it is permissible to marry again.

This, however, led to a question about those who were not menstruating (but whose husbands had consummated the marriage).

Thus Surah At Talaq (The Divorce) was revealed:
65.4: As for those of your women who no longer await menstruation, if you are unsure, then their waiting period is three months,
as it is for those who are yet to menstruate. But as for those who are pregnant, their term is until they deliver. And whosoever reverences God,
He will appoint ease for his affair.

Older women (i.e. post-menopausal) wait three months rather than three menstrual cycles, as do the young who have not menstruated.

The Quran supports marriage to and consummation of the marriage with pre-pubescent minors.
This is well established in the sharia/fiqh literature, with the limitation being able to bear the penetration (hence Muhammad waited about 3 years after the (contractual) nikah to Aisha at age 6 to (physically) nikah her at age 9).

(This generally holds for both the Sunni and Shia, it does not apply to "My Islam" or its practitioner...)

Arguing from the Quran is probably more compelling for some people than others, but Quranism is rejected by mainstream Sunni and Shia, so there’s bound to be an insurmountable wall of dissonance in any case, as we’ve seen.

[PointOfViewGun]

Rejecting an authentic hadith is widely considered unislamic, which again, is fine by me, but probably not by the sort of folks who assault people for acknowledging Mohamed’s pedophilia. Why laugh at someone when you could easily find yourself in their shoes?

You tell me. You feed your position with the same false, deceptive and libelous arguments as those that want to have sex with a kid.

The Quran supports marriage to and consummation of the marriage with pre-pubescent minors.
This is well established in the sharia/fiqh literature, with the limitation being able to bear the penetration (hence Muhammad waited about 3 years after the (contractual) nikah to Aisha at age 6 to (physically) nikah her at age 9).

Yet, it does not hold true in the Quran. You're merely making that claim by putting arguments in Quran's metaphorical mouth. The word "yet" in your translation doesn't exist.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You tell me. You feed your position with the same false, deceptive and libelous arguments as those that want to have sex with a kid.

I don’t think most Muslims want to have sex with a kid like Mohammed did, but mainstream Islam does posit that rejection of authentic hadith(s) and especially Quranism is unislamic and an indication of disbelief. Surely you know this. So the question remains why you defend the sort of Muslim zealots that might very well attack you in the street for your views just the same.

[Axalon]

Alright, some more commentary...

What I am concerned about, is when we blame a collection of ideas such as a religion for the actions of individuals - when to confront individuals about why they commit violence, we must look at their individual justifications for committing it - their interpretation. When judging them in court, we can only look to them as individuals. Their belief structure might inform the case, but it is the crime itself that is judged.

This will only make sense if there are any serious margins for interpretations in the first place - if there is little or none it won’t make sense. Then it only serves as a poor excuse for the inexcusable. Islam has certainly tried its best to kill any margins for interpretations of its intentions, thus the margins for interpretation here are small, at best.

This conversation has gone a long way from being about the random guy who insulted/attacked a preacher.

Coloring and bolding mine… Seriously? Even now you still try to deny the basic facts of this thread? Again (post:13)…

"It is about an attack at Speaker’s Corner on a high-profile Islam-critic that was attacked because she has the courage to speak up and take a stance against Islam – much unlike many (if not most) others these days. Now she has been stabbed and cut with a knife, because of her activities, because of her stance, this at Speakers Corner. It not just an attack on her person – it is an attack on freedom of speech as well, and an attempt to thru (cowardly) violence try to silence (warranted) criticisms of Islam, on top.” Viewing the video-footage of the actual event leaves ZERO doubt that this attack was both deliberate and selective…

But you can't charge someone with believing in an ideology.

In this instance you are fundamentally wrong… As I have said elsewhere…

“…if we declare ourselves a part of a collective - we can be held responsible for that deliberate act. Furthermore, that collective is also responsible for the ideas, ideals and doctrines that it defines itself with. The collective is also responsible for supporting, promoting and celebrating these ideas, ideals and doctrines, and by extension what these generate and influence in terms of various results and actions. Ergo, the collective can be - to some extents - also held responsible for actions that are inherently promoted within its ideas and ideals and doctrines. For instance, building a temple, taking slaves, killing certain people, oppressing certain people, favor certain people, using violence as method/tool to achieve its goals - and the list goes on and on... The collective can and should be held responsible for what it supports, promotes, declares and generates. This applies to any movement we can cook up - be it communism, nazism, fascism or Islam...

As a result we can hold Muslims collectively responsible for some things - as outlined above. For instance, no Muslim on the planet will reject the koran(s) or the things and ideas conveyed there - thus they can be held responsible for it as they explicitly support, promote and celebrate it - collectively. In short, you are wrong (unfortunately)..."

In this I am responding to Axalon. Who openly stated "I would gladly abolish Islam yesterday and never look back… But the world is not quite ready for that, unfortunately. " - A direct statement of desire to ban/block/abolish a collection of ideas.

I have already rejected this (your) interpretation of my writings on that note twice – this will be the third time over. Again, “I do not want to ban ideas like that, only you do it seems, after all it is you who repeatedly insist on banning stuff on my behalf – while I don’t.” As already stated, all I advocate is to make Islam socially bankrupt and unsustainable/unacceptable on general terms - due to its horrible content, ideals and doctrines. Just the way Nazism is socially bankrupt and unsustainable/unacceptable these days. If Nazism can reach that stage, so can Islam. Let me also add that I do find it amusing that you previously here insisted upon that others understand you correctly while you clearly don’t bother to respond in kind, to me at least…


***

As for the two additional/new videos posted in this thread… Curiously, Islam (and its servants) is yet again involved in these instances of violence at the Speakers Corner? What a coincidence! Who could have thought?!? Where are all those evil Hindu, Christian or Jewish assailants hiding? Why is it seemingly always Islam-related – is there some kind of connection there?!? Hmmm… Seriously, it is a sorry sight to behold these morons who can not handle the warranted questioning and criticism of Islam. It is poor form too, I think they should be severely punished for breaking the no-violence-code at Speakers Corner. That said, that black preacher's presentation and argumentation does leave something to be desired, I think.

As for Aishas age… Encyclopedia Britannica states that Aisha was born 614 AD. The same states that Mohammed (the big prophet) was born 570 AD, and that he died 632 AD. That is good enough authority for me. Aisha was thus 18 when he died. Aisha personally claimed that she was 6 when she was married off as a child-bride to Mohammed, and that he “consummates” that marriage with her when she was 9 (while he was 53). That is good enough authority for me. Overall, it makes up for a solid case of pedophilia as he was constantly “fondling” with her (from that point onwards) – according to Islam’s own source material (hadiths). Again, good enough sources and authority for me. Period.

That the self-declared “religion of truth” (Islam) and its activists can’t handle these outlined truths (and many others) is not my problem, nor should it be – any religious feelings be damned. After all, I am just a dirty evil kafir (unbeliever) and dweller of hellfire who have lots to live up too - if one is to believe rather hateful portrait of us kafirs as the eternal wanderers of darkness in the 25+ different versions of “the Koran” (currently in use today). You know, the book(s) that supposedly is eternal, celestial, perfectly preserved and the word of God (and most certainly is not authored and compiled by any Arab scribes in the late 600’s).

In the western secular world we do have the tradition of scrutiny and many freedoms - that is, as long as we do not allow the agents of Islam to take it all away from us. In the words of Ursula von der Leyen: ”freedom is priceless” and for once I do agree with her. Islam and its agents constantly try to rob us of that very freedom, our culture and way of life - the very stuff that makes up and defines the western secular world. The stuff that makes it better then the rest. Look to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and North Sudan that is their alternative, the oppressive, authoritarian and totalitarian order that Islam generates. Make your choice folks - or the agents of Islam will try to make it for you.

- A

[Infidel144]

Thus Surah At Talaq (The Divorce) was revealed:
65.4: As for those of your women who no longer await menstruation, if you are unsure, then their waiting period is three months,
as it is for those who are yet to menstruate. But as for those who are pregnant, their term is until they deliver. And whosoever reverences God,
He will appoint ease for his affair.
Exegetical:
From the Asbab Al-Nuzul (Reasons and Occasions of Revelation):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[65:4](And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) [65:4]. Said Muqatil: “When the verse (Women
who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart…), Kallad ibn al-Nu‘man ibn Qays al-Ansari said: ‘O
Messenger of Allah, what is the waiting period of the woman who does not menstruate and the woman who
has not menstruated yet? And what is the waiting period of the pregnant woman?’ And so Allah, exalted is
He, revealed this verse”. Abu Ishaq al-Muqri’ informed us> Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Hamdun> Makki
ibn ‘Abdan> Abu’l-Azhar> Asbat ibn Muhammad> Mutarrif> Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr ibn Salim who said:

“When the waiting period for divorced and widowed women was mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b
said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, some women of Medina are saying: there are other women who have not been
mentioned!’ He asked him: ‘And who are they?’ He said: ‘Those who are too young [such that they have not
started menstruating yet], those who are too old [whose menstruation has stopped] and those who are
pregnant’. And so this verse (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) was revealed”.

Al Jalalayn:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[65:4]
And [as for] those of your women who (read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances) no longer expect to
menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be
three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period
shall [also] be three months — both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these
[latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days]
[Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if
divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make
matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter.

Ibn Kathir:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The `Iddah is made up of cleanliness and the menstrual period.
''So he divorces her while it is clear that she is pregnant , or he does not due to having
sex, or since he does not know if she is pregnant or not . This is why the scholars said that there
are two types of divorce, one that conforms to the Sunnah and another innovated. The divorce
that conforms to the Sunnah is one where the husband pronounces one divorce to his wife when
she is not having her menses and without having had sexual intercourse with her after the
menses ended. One could divorce his wife when it is clear that she is pregnant . As for the
innovated divorce, it occurs when one divorces his wife when she is having her menses, or after
the menses ends, has sexual intercourse with her and then divorces her, even though he does
not know if she became pregnant or not . There is a third type of divorce, which is neither a
Sunnah nor an innovation where one divorces a young wife who has not begun to have menses,
the wife who is beyond the age of having menses, and divorcing one's wife before the marriage
was consummated.

Legal:
From the Hedeya

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Infants may be contracted by their guardians.
The marriage of a boy or girl underage,
by the authority of their paternal kindred,
is lawful, whether the girl be a virgin
or not, the Prophet having declared, "Mar-
riage is committed to the paternal kindred."
Malik alleges that this is a power the excecise
of which does not appertain to any of the
kindred except the father. Shafei maintains
that it belongs only to her father or grandfather
: and he adds that this privilege does
not appertain to any guardian whatever with
respect to an infant Siyeeba, although he be
her father or her grantfather. Malik argues
that power over freemen is estalished from
necessity ; but in the present instance no such
necessity exists, as infants are not subject
to any canal appetite : yet it is vested in a
father, on the authority of sacred writings
contrary to what analogy would suggest :
but he also says that a grandfather, not being
the same as a father, is not to be included
with him.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And of one not subject to courses, three
months : and of one who is pregnant, the
term of tier travail. THE Edit of a woman
who, on account of extreme youth or age,
is not subject to the menstrual discharge,
is three months, because GOD has so ordained
in the sacred writing, The Edit of a pregnant
woman is accomplished by her delivery,
whether she be a slave or free, because GOD,
in the sacred writings, has so ordained respecting
woman in that situation.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And so likewise of a child born of a wife
under age within nine months after either
irreversible or reversible divorce. IT a man
repudiate, by an irreversible divorce, a wife
who is under the age of puberty, but yet
such an one as may admit of carnal connexion,
and she bring forth a child after the
expiration of nine months from the time
of divorce, the parentage of the child is
not established in him ; but if the delivery
bu within less than nine months, it is
established. This is according to Haneefa
and Mohammed, Aboo Yoosaf says that
the Parentage is established in the man,
although the child, should not be born within
less than two years from the period of divorce,
because she was under Edit, and it is possible that the pregnancy
may have existed at the time of the divorce, and she not have
declared the accomplishment of her Edit, wherefore this infant wife
is the same as a full-grown woman.

The Mukhtasar of Al Quduri:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The marriage of a minor boy and [of] a minor girl is permitted when the guardian gives them in marriage, be the minor girl a virgin or a previously married woman who had consummated her marriage.
[...]
Sunnah according to time is established only in respect of the woman with whom marriage has been consummated, and that is when he divorces her once in the period of purity in which he does not have sexual intercourse with her, and [with regards to] the woman whose marriage has not been consummated, [the sunnah is] that he may divorce her in the period of purity or menstruation.
When the woman does not menstruate due to her minority [age] or old age, and he wants to divorce her according to the sunnah, he should divorce her once.
When a month passes, he divorces her again, and when a month passes [again], he divorces her another [time].
It is permitted for him to divorce her and not create a gap in time between having sexual intercourse with her and her divorce.

Umdat as-Salik:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

THE BRIDE'S RIGHT TO MARRY A SUITABLE MATCH OF HER CHOICE
m3.9 Whenever a free woman asks to marry a suitor who is a suitable match (def m4) (O: by telling her
guardian, ``Marry me to him''), the guardian must marry her to him (O: whether she is a virgin or
nonvirgin, and whether prepubescent or not).
[...]
1) The only guardians who may compel their charge to marry are a virgin bride's father or father's
father, compel meaning to marry her to a suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.
(2) Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone unless she accepts and
gives her permission. Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father's father may marry her to
someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached
puberty. A virgin's silence is considered as permission. As for the nonvirgin of sound mind, no one may
marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether
the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.
[...]
Neither sunna nor unlawful innovation means the divorce of a wife who is prepubescent,
postmenopausal, pregnant, or one with whom one has not yet had sexual intercourse.
[...]
n9.1 There is no waiting period for a woman divorced before having had sexual intercourse with her
husband.
n9.2 A waiting period is obligatory for a woman divorced after intercourse, whether the husband and
wife are prepubescent, have reached puberty, or one has and the other has not.
Intercourse means copulation (def: n7.7). If the husband was alone with her but did not copulate with
her, and then divorced her, there is no waiting period.

I'm nearly certain the scholars, the exegetes and jurists of Islam know almost as much about the Quran, as the adherent of Myslam knows about the Myquran...

(The above are Sunni, I may add in Shia later).

Shia:
"And those from your women despaired from the menstruation, if you doubt,then their waiting period is of three months, and of those who have yet to
menstruate; and those who are pregnant, their term is that they should place their burden (give birth). And one who fears Allah, He will Make ease for
him in his matter [65:4]"
Hub-e-Ali:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Muhammad Bin Yaqoub, from Ali Bin Ibrahim, from his father, from Ibn Abu Umeyr, from Hamaad Bin Usman, from Al-Halby:
‘Abu Abdullah asws having said: ‘The waiting period of the woman who does not menstruate, and the menstruating woman who is not clean (from it) is of three months. And the waiting period of the one who menstruates and her menstruation is established, is of three periods’.
[...]
Ali, from his father, from Ibn Abu Umeyr, from Hammad Bin Usman, from Al Halby,
(It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullahasws having said: ‘The waiting period of the woman who does not menstruate, and the woman suffering from post-childbirth bleeding and is not pure, is of three months; and the waiting period of the menstruating woman, and her menstruation is regular, is of three Quroo (pure periods)’.

Legal:
From the Taudhihul Masae'l

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Iddah of Divorce (The Waiting Period after Divorce)
2519. A wife who is under nine and who is in her menopause will not be required to observe any waiting period. It means that, even if the husband has had sexual intercourse with her, she can remarry immediately after being divorced.
2520. * If a wife who has completed nine years of her age and is not in menopause, is divorced by her husband after sexual intercourse, it is necessary for her to observe the waiting period of divorce. The waiting period of a free woman is that after her husband divorces her during her Pak period, she should wait till she sees Haidh twice and becomes Pak. Thereafter, as soon as she sees Haidh for the third time, her waiting period will be over and she can marry again. If, however, a husband divorces his wife before having sexual intercourse with her, there is no waiting period for her and she can marry another man immediately after being divorced, except if she finds traces of her husband's semen in her private part, then she should observe Iddah.
[...]
2524. * If a woman who has completed nine years of age, and is not in menopause, contracts a temporary marriage, for example, if she marries a man for a period of one month or a year and the period of her marriage comes to an end, or her husband exempts her from the remaining period, she
should observe Iddah. If she sees Haidh, she should observe Iddah for two periods of Haidh, and cannot marry again during that period. But if she does not see Haidh, then she should refrain from marrying another man for forty five days. And if she is pregnant, she should observe Iddah till the birth or
miscarriage of the child, or for forty five days and as a recommended precaution, she should wait for whichever period is longer.

[PointOfViewGun]

I don’t think most Muslims want to have sex with a kid like Mohammed did, but mainstream Islam does posit that rejection of authentic hadith(s) and especially Quranism is unislamic and an indication of disbelief. Surely you know this. So the question remains why you defend the sort of Muslim zealots that might very well attack you in the street for your views just the same.

Why am I defending them? How am I defending them? You are actually defending them much more so given that you are trying to give credit to their arguments at face value. The mainstream Islam as you put it picks and chooses which Hadith story to use. Hadith has numerous stories with many contradicting ones. It's in its nature to reject some while use others.

A simple example:

BUKHARI HADITH: Volume 1, Book 4, Number 159: Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
The Prophet performed ablution by washing the body parts only once.

BUKHARI HADITH: Volume 1, Book 4, Number 160: Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Zaid:
The Prophet performed ablution by washing the body parts twice.

BUKHARI HADITH: Volume 1, Book 4, Number 196: Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Zaid:
Once Allah’s Apostle came to us and we brought out water for him in a brass pot. He performed ablution thus: He washed his face thrice, and his forearms to the elbows twice, then passed his wet hands lightly over the head from front to rear and brought them to front again and washed his feet (up to the ankles).

Picking one over the others means that we'd be rejecting the others as accurate. It's understandable that you're trying to hide your position behind this self-evidently ignorant argumentation but this is no rocket science.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Why am I defending them? How am I defending them? You are actually defending them much more so given that you are trying to give credit to their arguments at face value. The mainstream Islam as you put it picks and chooses which Hadith story to use. Hadith has numerous stories with many contradicting ones. It's in its nature to reject some while use others.

A simple example:

Picking one over the others means that we'd be rejecting the others as accurate. It's understandable that you're trying to hide your position behind this self-evidently ignorant argumentation but this is no rocket science.

I’m not Muslim so I’m not interested in defending hadiths. As I said, I’ve simply refuted your claims that Mohammed’s marriage and sex with a child is false, deceitful or otherwise libelous. I also pointed out your rejection of authentic hadith(s) is widely considered apostasy by most Muslims, some of whom might physically attack you for your views, just like the incident which you found so amusing. I wonder if you would be laughing while getting assaulted for your apostate views?