Beating women in Islam

[Angrboda]

Why couldn't god dictate a book that was unequivocally, clearly, and undeniably against the beating of women?  Why leave it up to interpretations and prone to translation errors?  Surely god is capable of that.

But he did, the Quran made it very clear -with explicit words- that:

https://quran.com/5/45?translations=20

Sahih International

Sura 5, The Quran:
(45) And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

So did the woman in the video take any life, or any eye, or any nose, or any ear, or cause any wound ?
I think he went against his own holy book by threatening the woman with a weapon for unveiling her face.

The second verse needed is this:

---

https://quran.com/4/34?translations=


Sura 4, The Quran:
https://quran.com/4/34?translations=

Abul Ala Maududi(With tafsir)

(4:34) Men are the protec-tors and maintainers of women6 because Allah has made one of them excel over the other,7 and because they spend out of their possessions (to support them). Thus righteous women are obedient and guard the rights of men in their absence under Allah's protection.8 As for women of whom you fear rebellion, admonish them, and remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.9 Then if they obey you, do not seek ways to harm them. Allah is Exalted, Great.

---

The Quran is obvious. You don't get to hold a stick and threaten people with it; if our friend in the video tried to defend his action the two verses above will put him in a tight spot because it is obvious: what kind of rebellion and ill treatment did she do him? did she threaten him with a stick?

If the wife or the woman didn't satisfy the "eye for an eye" verse; how are we going to beat her?
The rebellion doesn't have 1 punishment, that means it is "coming in different forms". 3 actually; and they are mentioned in the verse above.

And if the rebellion is violent; the husband can also reply with violence or forgive.

I believe God was very clear. But this man has no justification for threatening a woman with a stick for unveiling her face.
Which is expected from the Wahhabi, Saudi religious institution. They read in reverse.

The expression that "the exception proves the rule," supposedly originally meant that the existence of an exception implies the existence of a more general rule. In this case, a more general rule exists (maybe). However, the existence of the more general rule does not itself testify as to whether the wife beating passage is intended to be conformant to the general rule, or is pointing out an exception which, justifiably violates the general rule. You are arguing that it is simply another case of the more general rule. That does not appear to be the case, as lex talionis does not appear to be involved in the wife beating surah, so it wouldn't be an example of such. An example of that is that the surah says to respond to feared rebellion with deprival of sex. That is not repaying kind in kind, so the verse has already departed from lex talionis. So what is your argument that the wife beating surah is an example of lex talionis and not an exception to it based on? It appears to read as if it were an exception. If husbands were expected to treat their wives the same way that their wives treat them, then why are there three graded responses to the same offense? It doesn't read as a confirmation of the lex talionis verse, but as an exception to it.