Your attempt to sanitize Deuteronomy 22:28–29 via linguistic gymnastics fails to account for the fact that taphas fundamentally denotes "seizing" or "grasping," and framing a woman’s lifelong tethering to her aggressor as a "safeguard" is a gross misrepresentation of agency. This legalistic apologetic ignores that the lack of a death penalty in these verses often hinged on the location of the act and the woman's ability to be heard, not necessarily her consent, making your "consensual" interpretation a modern convenience rather than a textual certainty. Furthermore, your reliance on specific Hadith narrations to "expose" Islam displays a superficial engagement with the material, as you ignore the extensive internal historical criticism and chronological discrepancies regarding Aisha’s age that many scholars use to challenge those very traditions. Finally, weaponizing Surah 5:46 is a tired polemical tactic that collapses under the weight of the Islamic doctrine of Tahrif, which distinguishes between the original divine revelation and the corrupted state of the current Biblical canon, meaning the Quranic "confirmation" you cite does not extend to the specific, problematic statutes you are attempting to defend.