the above link is a rather interesting article on domestic abuse and the quran. i found one part of it rather interesting, which is quoted below
So, if Islam clearly condemns all forms of violence against women, what does verse 4:34 of the Qur'an sanction? While there are many English translations of Qur'an 4:34, a recent translation by Ahmad Zaki Hammad renders the meaning as follows:
"Men are the maintainers [qawwamuna] of the affairs of women, for God has preferred in bounty one of them over the other, and for what they spend to sustain them from their own wealth. Thus, righteous women are devoutly obedient, safeguarding their sacred trusts in the absence of their husbands. For God has ordained such trusts to be safeguarded. So as to those wives whose flagrant defiance [nushuzahunna] you fear, you shall admonish them. And, should they persist, part with them in bed. And, should they persist strike them with a light hand [wadribuhunna]. But if they obey you, then do not seek to go against them in any way. Indeed God is ever exalted, all great."
There is no agreement on the translation of the verse. Therefore, for a proper understanding of the meaning and implications of the verse it is necessary to look beyond English translations of the Qur'an, and look to the interpretive principle established by the scholarly consensus of specialists in the Sacred Law.
It is clear from scholarly tradition that wadribuhunna that is referred to in the verse is only relevant in the situation where a married woman has committed open adultery, and that to "beat" a woman simply because she is disobedient cannot possibly be a legitimate understanding.
please refer to the bolded part in the quotation. does anybody have anybody have any sources for this? if indeed the super-controversial beating part of 4:134 refers to adultery, i think i finally understand the verse.
i mean, adultery is an open rupture of the marriage, and if all the guy can do, is very lightly smack his wife (assume no 4 witnesses) for sleeping around then this verse is a whole lot less controversial.
i guess the problem though is that the verse clearly doesn't define what "flagrant defiance [nushuzahunna]" is. where are our scholars when you need them! what do you think?