You're a muslim ? Ah ...
> I think this shows your ignorance, because Aisha was not related to Ali. Aisha was AbuBakr's daughter. Again, please cite your source for this claim.
Heh so I got the name wrong. I confused Ali and Abu Bakr. Whoops. I notice you don't disagree with the premise : that her marriage was based on a contract. As to what Aisha has to do with the caliph succession ... (Aisha who was raped by the prophet as a child) (because I know you'll argue : rape is the act of having sex with someone against their will, which you will find in the hadith was the case, she was either 6 or 9 at the time (and he "liked to fondle her" - also against her will - before that - need a reference ?). Hence describing the prophet as a paedophilic rapist is simply a fact)
As to the succession issue, have you seriously never read the story of the split between sunni and shi'a ? Or are you simply a sunni muslim and pretend not to know ... Here's the question : why did Abu Bakr succeed the paeophile prophet, when sharia is so very clear on the issue of succession ... do father-in-laws inherit things ?
To be honest : I've always wondered that about sunnis to be honest. I mean their whole raison d'etre is a blatant violation of sharia. I'd be interested in your answer to the question : why did the "empire" go to Abu Bakr ? The "election" thing somehow only applied in that one case ... which means it's a lie.
> No. I mentioned elsewhere that the death penalty in Islam only applies to 2 or 3 very specific cases, and none of them include living in a non-Islamic state.
"2 or 3 specific cases" - heh I know why you don't want to name them. Ashamed about the apostasy laws perhaps ?
"The basic principle is that it is not permissible for the Muslim to settle among the mushrikeen. This is indicated by evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and on the basis of common sense."
There is no shortage of references at the link. As for the death penalty ... do tell, what is the punishment for knowingly violating sharia and not correcting yourself when this is pointed out ? Historically, this is seen as apostacy, and well, it kind of is, of course. Both the Ummayyads and the Ottomans massacred muslim populations for living outside their borders (not as a matter of policy though, but this is the reason given for 3 massacres they committed. Granted, there isn't a hair on my head that believes that to be the actual reason).