Beating women in Islam

[Angrboda]

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.

I think pin-pointing the trigger for the punishment is the key; and the trigger is "the rebellion".
"Rebellion" in itself is a very loose word; for example you can rebel on the norm by wearing emo style, or rebel on the norm by cutting yourself, or rebel on the norm by killing masses. Thus rebellion's meaning is missing if you don't specify its "kind".

Completing the example, let's say I see Agatha. Agatha has scars on her hands. So I assume that she rebelled on her norm and society by choosing the self-inflicted wounding.
That way, I specified what her rebellion is.

In the wife-beating verse; the word "rebellion/نشوز" is also loose without a specification.

There are 3 graded responses for 3 kinds of rebellions, the rebellion kinds are implicit (in my view) and I derived them from the punishments for each, putting "the eye for an eye" as my standard for deriving the types.

It's not the same offense. It's 3 degrees of the offense, and each punishment suit the degree.

I made three objections. You responded to only one. Moreover, that there are three different responses adds to the case that it's not lex talionis.