I originally stated that under islamic law women cannot initiate divorce.
You claimed otherwise, no less than 7 or eight times I believe.
Here's one: "Actually, you haven't submitted anything in the Quran stating that a woman can't initiate divorce.
I did advise you in the beginning of our discussion to READ.
A woman CANNOT, repeat CANNOT initiate divorce under islamic law.
Shall I repeat that again for you? She CANNOT initiate divorce.
Once more with emphasis? She CANNOT INITIATE divorce.
Is it becoming clear now? I gave you the opportunity, 7 or 8 times, to "catch" what you overlooked so you wouldn't look foolish.
Again, you are either ignorant or willfully attempting to deceive.
Here's what that "big" word you used from your google search actually means:
Under islamic law, a woman cannot anul the marriage on her own, (her husband can and for no reason) She must REQUEST permission from an Islamic judge to decide if she has valid reason for the "khul".
That is to say that she does not have the same right that an Islamic man enjoys in getting rid of his unwanted wives at his whims and fancies and she is unable to INITIATE the proceedings.
In addition, A woman has to ransom herself to be free from her tyrannical husband; she can ransom herself from her husband for more than he gave her…29.10.32
The ‘khul’ is an expensive process on the part of an Islamic woman to get rid of her unwanted husband. She must pay an amount that may (or may not) exceed the amount of mahr that she received from her husband after the consummation of marriage. Even when a husband beats her severely by breaking her bones, she still has to pay the husband to get rid of the tyrant.
AntiRepublicrat would have you believe women are treated equally on this too.
I stated: You make the wildest, baseless accusations based on nothing but your opinion.
You claim: "Religious census. Depending on the source, Catholics aren't even the majority of Christians in the world."
Census? Source? What source?
YOU are not a source...
Your opinions are irrelevant.
Saying it over and over makes it no more true. You need to cite your source.
She must REQUEST permission from an Islamic judge to decide if she has valid reason for the "khul"
In other words, she initiates the divorce much in the same way a woman here would file for divorce with the court.
Even when a husband beats her severely by breaking her bones, she still has to pay the husband to get rid of the tyrant.
Payment is up to the courts. A high payment is for a capricious divorce. A low or no payment is for a justified divorce such as your example. All of this is based on the premise of the husband not being insane, impotent, or other things, which would qualify the wife for a haqq-i-faskh, the equivalent of an annulment.
Census? Source? What source? YOU are not a source
Any source. Do you deny that there are at least a billion non-Catholic Christians in the world? Do you think these people believe canon to be law?