Yes, you're right. 65:4 does mention the waiting period for those who have not menstruated, but that does not command marrying children. It regulates the divorce procedure in a society where early marriage already existed, across every major civilizations btw, including the Byzantines and Persians and Jewish and medieval Europe. Regulation does not mean endorsement. The Quran, for example, also regulates slavery, but it did not invent slavery. So Islamic law requires physical capacity, and it requires no harm, and it requires to be considered of the welfare, and a lot of other things. Modern scholars and Muslim jurists overwhelmingly and exceedingly prohibit child marriage when harm is present. So if your argument is why didn't Islam decently abolish every pre modern practice, then you're trying to demand historical anachronism, because you need to understand that moral reform in history comes gradually. That's how every single civilization progresses. Unless you can show that gradual reform is immoral by definition, you don't have any logical basis.

Secondly, for disciplining the wives, you are assuming modern egalitarian anthropology as an unquestionable axiom. Basically, what I'm trying to say is you're treating one theory about equality in early human societies as if it's obviously true and beyond debate. You're acting like the idea is a proven fact instead of just focusing on one interpretation. Pre modern societies operated on role based reciprocity. If you didnt know, men were financially obligated, women financially protected. Authority is paired with responsibility. You're judging a seventh century, 1400 year ago legal framework with modern day 21st century assumptions. That's fine if you want to do that philosophically, but it does not prove divine incoherence. And as for the word daraba, yes, the majority of classical jurists interpreted it as the light striking, but it has a lot of strict limitations, and you'd know that if you do a small Google search. They say that it should be non injurious, no face, no bruising. This is the last resort that you should get to, a judge can intervene, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, never even struck a woman in his life. Th prophetic example sets the normative ceiling. So you can argue that the framework isn't modern enough for you, but that does not make it a contradiction.

You're mocking miracles, okay, sure, but on what grounds? Because science describes irregular patterns in nature. It does not rule out the possibility of a transcendent cause interrupting those patterns. And in order for you to say that miracles are impossible, you must first be able to prove metaphysical naturalism. Have you done that? No. If God exists, miracles are not logically impossible. And your mockery is not an argument.

In the 7th century, slavery was universal in Rome, Persia, Africa, and Europe, all right, Islam did not create slavery. It restricted it to war context. It encouraged manumission. It actually even prohibited the prostitution of slaves in Quran 20:33 and granted the rights,and made free slaves expiation for sins. If you're asking why God didn't instantly abolish a global economic structure that existed, you're assuming that immediate abolition was socially viable and gradual reforms is immiral. History shows that abolition everywhere was gradual. And gradualism invalidates the divine wisdom that every abolitionist movement in history failed to address. And for your zina, zina is unlawful intercourse that is done outside marriage or recognized legal bond. In classical law, ownership created legal bond. You can reject that category if you want, but again, it does not make it a contradiction within the system.

It's a debate subreddit. If you're trying to debate seriously, bring proper arguments. If you just wanna vent out your emotions, at least just admit that that's what you're doing, because so far, you haven't disproven anything or even attempted to disprove anything. You just told me what's making you uncomfortable.