A Muslim man is allowed to beat his wife or wives
Subject to interpretation. Others say it means he will not have sex with her until she straightens up.
A Muslim man is allowed to have four wives at one time
Cultural thing, practiced around the world. Mormons had it too, some still have it.
A Muslim man can divorce his wife or wives instantaneously.
That is not considered proper. In order to prevent capricious divorce, they must live together for three menstrual cycles (three months if menopausal) after the announcement. Any intimacy between them breaks the pending divorce.
A Muslim woman must pay money to the husband by court orders to have the marriage dissolved.
In this case she is considered to be the contract breaker and must give back some or all of the money she got from the husband. The judgement of amount (if any) will be based on whether she's just divorcing for the hell of it, or if she has sound reason.
BTW, here you just admitted women can initiate divorce in Islam.
If a divorced couple wants to remarry each other, the wife must marry another person, must have complete sex with him and must be divorced by him willingly.
This only applies after a third divorce between the same two people. It was invented to stop the then-current practices of constant divorce and remarry. We both believe this is not a good thing, and it isn't because it's supposed to act as a deterrent.
Rich men from the Middle East travel to Southern India to take advantage of this law on financially poor women
Abuse of a loophole. Sickening.
"You grab lists, but you don't understand what's behind them"
Not lists, documentation. Again, this from the poster who thinks sharia isn't so bad.
"BTW, here you just admitted women can initiate divorce in Islam."
No, I didn't...I did cite another example of the inequal treatment of women under sharia...
You: "Actually, you haven't submitted anything in the Quran stating that a woman can't initiate divorce."
I have, repeatedly. Islamic law is based on the quran. You actually haven't READ any of the sources or documentationYou deflect this:
"Hmm, if a muslim rejects hadith antiRepub, it would make him a heretic, a blasphemer, and earn him a death sentence."
Completely true statement.
"According to the Muslims who do accept them for their various reasons. A majority of Christians don't accept Catholic canon, and long ago they would have been labeled as heretics, subject to death. Does that make them wrong?"
Oh, I knew that was coming.
"A majority of Christians don't accept Catholic canon"
Oh really? According to whom? You? Couldn't resist that, could you? Your agenda is showing.
Again, you change the subject.
You make the wildest, baseless accusations based on nothing but your opinion.
Now.
No, again, sharia is NOT "Subject to interpretation". It is, islamic law and it IS currently in practice today in Nigeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.
It is the reality of the world situation...
You might want to actually READ the posts. It will save you much humiliation.
You are completely ignorant of sharia, islam and world events.
Again, don't waste my time with your lies, deceptions, and ignorance.
I suggest you actually read a "book" and stop wasting your time googling...