The reason women get only get half of the inheritance is because they are not allowed to spend out of it to maintain themselves or children -- the man is obligated to provide (for the woman and children) which is why he gets a larger share.

The reasons why Muslim men can marry out of their religion (and only to Christians/Jews/people of the Book, might I add) is because to ensure that the offspring are muslim ; during that time (and some would argue even now) it was the man who had a heavier-weight when dictating the social affairs of his children, moreover than the woman.

As far as marriage against their will goes:

"O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (Quran, 4:19)"
You have to remember this was in the 600's, the Arabs were pagan tribes, so this was a momentous statement for the Quran to make at that time.

Indeed, momentous: http://quran.com/4/34

"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

that is a different verse, and the emphasis is not to abuse the women but to subjugate. even then it comes after first talking to them, second not sleeping with them, and finally forcing them (scholars agree, only with an open hand, like you would discipline your child for example)
and this isn't any woman, this is the woman who has sworn marital oaths to you, so there is some basis for all this.

And sharia gave women rights and recognition, while we didn't even recognize them as people until 1929, fourteen hundred years later.

Ugh. Look, yet again I seem to have come across yet another thread in which it is apparently not allowed to take a complex or nuanced stance on an issue. It is possible to have a problem with the bigoted, sexist, misogynist and sexually repressive aspects of the Islamic faith, and not actually hold a hatred for an estimated 1.3 - 1.57 billion people (about 21%-23% of the world's population). What you have to understand is that there is as much varied opinion about all these things among Muslims as there are among Christians. Why is it easy to accept that not all Christians believe wholeheartedly in everything in the bible, and freely admit that a lot of the bible is actually not that nice, but all Muslims everywhere have to be violent, sexist, racist extremists who believe in every single word in the Qur'an?

"while we didn't even recognize them as people until 1929, fourteen hundred years later."

What country are you referring to? And what do you mean 'recognize as people'?

Canada. women were not considered 'persons' under law, literally.

http://archives.cbc.ca/on_this_day/10/18/

Wait, so women could be judges more than a decade before this ruling. You make it seem like they had no place at all in Canadian society. Women can't even walk unaccompanied by a male in numerous Muslim countries, nor can they vote let alone serve as judges.

Incidentally pre-Islamic pagans held numerous female goddesses, so much for the idea that women progressed after the Muslim invasions. The fact that in pre-Islamic Arabia, Mohammed's first wife was a wealthy business owner and able to turn down proposals for marriage points to this fact. Not to mention the fact that free pagan women opposed him on the battlefield, like Hind bint Utbah.

You're right, but I think you're doing the same - you make it look like Muslim women can't work or have no social responsibility at all.

Even though it sounds ridiculously limiting, the only real implications were for women serving in the unelected and largely non-functional Senate. I mean, obviously there were troubling implications for feminists of the time, I'm not arguing that. But it's not as bad as it sounds, and Canada at the time was certainly no more sexist than most other countries. It's more a matter of historical and legal oddity than a really, really landmark change in the course of feminism in Canada, even though it is portrayed that way.

i cant beleive this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G38dJU22F9M&feature=fvwrel

You can find crazy people among any population willing to go on TV and say vile things. Ever hear of Ann Coulter?

Sharia "gave" women rights.
Here I thought that all human beings had natural rights.
How silly of me.
If a man has rights denied to women it is just wrong.
There is no possible logical justification for denying women rights except misogyny.