The point that #1101804 was trying to make was that we don't actually know if anything said is actually true (As far as I am aware, the Hadiths are regarded as far from reliable, but I could be incorrect)
Of course then there is the difficulties in interpretation of what marriage actually entails in such a time and how it is viewed today.
Whether marriage requires sex, or whether it was viewed as 'protection' as some followers proclaim, the issue is that we don't know what acts were performed and the only sources of information are, at best, secondary sources, and most likely thirdary or fourthary sources.
Not to mention that the massive language barrier screws up details and such. Remember what you read is translated and the actual definition of a sentence can change through translation. Don't even bother thinking that translation doesn't affect the overall message, it does. It's another language, another time, and another way of thinking. Trying to understand text from another time/language is always a bitch, especially without context of what would have been said and the way it would have been conveyed.
I'm not going to make excuses for Mohammed, if he was screwing a little girl then that is horrible. Heck, from the sources provided in the context given it seems unlikely that any other conclusion could be true. But, I'll be honest, it isn't to ONLY conclusion that can be reached without stretching what is been said.
On the first link provided the poster assumes that marriage and sex an interlinked, which may not have been the case. Of course, later on it is actually said that it was the case so my argument has fallen unless the second provided source is inaccurate or poorly translated.
It's a bit of a bitch to properly analyse what is been said because of the language barrier making what is been said provided with multiple meanings. I mean the line "The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years)." is a nightmare the properly read. the use of the word "engaged" could very easily mean sex, but it isn't actually know to only mean that, which makes the translation more difficult to read. It could have meant "conversed" or "fought" or even "attacked", and we still wouldn't see a difference. Language is a bitch.
In part 2, Tabari IX:131 describes it as "consummated his marriage with me"
Bukhari 5:234 describes it as "The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years)"
Sahih Muslim Book 8, Number 3311 describes her age as: "and (s)he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine"
I'm excluding bits so this comment isn't overly long, but you have the link anyway so you can check what I have written. Anyway, the point I wish to make is that because the text we see is a translation, the correct words used are still actually unknown unless you view the original script (which would be pointless to me due to my inability to read any language that isn't English).
However the use of "consummated" and "engaged" is not really enough to be complete proof of what is been said. I know, you think it is because it is there in plain English and obvious....but that's the problem, it's another language and it has not been blatantly said, it is been implied. Which means it could really mean almost anything.
Of course then there is Sunan Abu Dawud, which is apparently not viewed as authentic by most, which does say it blatantly. "He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old." the actual words used before translation explicitly say that is was indeed intercourse as well.
This is rather clean cut and obvious, but then there is the nature of the document been untrusted. If we assume it is deemed "non-authentic" because of what it says about Mohammed, and not due to it's past/creation, then we have reached a conclusion and the Prophet screwed a child and is a terrible person (at least by today's standards....back then was a little more...accepted).
The real question is whether Sunan Abu Dawud is a trustworthy source. The truth is that it is actually a secondary source at best and it's truthfulness is rather difficult to determine.
Either way, there is no real way to determine the truth from what limited resources I have at my disposal, but evidence could indeed lead both ways. However I would be an idiot to not say that it is rather unlikely that Mohammed did marry a girl, but what acts he performed are not known...though were very likely illegal in today's society.
That is my pointless conclusion.
Anyway, now that I have managed to add very little to the discussion I will leave an obligatory DIAF for ahmed2010 who is a disturbing SOB who should leave this world ASAP