His marriage to her was never based on a contract. This is purely made up on your part. When we discuss history, specifically Islamic history, we rely on sound narrations, which have been inspected in order to remove any falsities from them. So yes, by stating that you mixed up people and not knowing what you were talking about, I was implicitly disagreeing with your premise.
While this is not the place to discuss her age at marriage, it is sufficient to know that she had already been engaged to another person prior to her marriage to the Prophet, Peace be upon him. Not one of the non-Muslims at that time mentioned anything about Aisha's age being different from the norm when she wed the Prophet, Peace be upon him. You should know that the non-Muslims were waiting for the Prophet to do anything non-conventional to criticize him.
> have you seriously never read the story of the split between sunni and shi'a ?
The (unfortunate) split happened due to several reasons, most, if not all, mainly politically motivated. That being said, both groups are Muslims, who are forbidden to fight each other. There are attempts (even today) to bring them closer, instead of drive them apart.
> when sharia is so very clear on the issue of succession
Succession happens by a form of voting. AbuBakr (and the four Chaliphs after him -- Omar, Othman, Ali, and AlHassan) were all voted in to the Chaliph position. This era spanned 30 years, after which we had the first king, and power was inherited thereafter.
> I mean their whole raison d'etre is a blatant violation of sharia.
Are you saying that according to Shariah, power must be inherited? It is not the case: http://quran.com/42/38 (and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves). Shura is a form of election. Where is the contradiction in what Sunnis did?
> heh I know why you don't want to name them. Ashamed about the apostasy laws perhaps ?
Because they are not the point of debate here. This can stay for another time if you're honestly interested.
> http://islamqa.info/en/13363
I fail to see where it says that the death penalty is involved here. Please point out explicitly where it says that the penalty for living in a non-Muslim country is death.
The fact remains that in most Western countries today, Muslims are free to practice their religion. I think the deduction is clear. You're free to drop by any Muslim Community Association in your area and ask them about this issue.
> what is the punishment for knowingly violating sharia ...
It depends on what was violated. Shariah means "law" or "rule". There are some violations that have penalties in the Shariah, and some that were left open (e.g. murder, vs. crossing a red traffic light). If you're trying to say that any violation of Shariah incurs the death penalty, then, you are simply wrong. No Companion or scholar had this opinion in the entirety of Islamic history.
> Both the Ummayyads and the Ottomans massacred muslim populations for living outside their borders
And who says they were right? Even Muslims admit that bad things happened during the rules of these empires. We point out these bad things, and we do not follow their footsteps.
I prefer to settle one point at a time (there are two to which I responded above), instead of being all over the place. It seems you have so many misconceptions, not based on the Quran or sound Hadith narrations, which you try to bring up each time. And I assure you that most of them are easily refuted.