dharaba can mean two things, to beat, or to talk, to tell In my understanding it means here it is allowed to talk to your wife a little harshly, if she continues to do something that is wrong to do.
Violence was abhorred by the prophet (saw)
A companion complained to the prophet (saw): In Mecca the women were kept under control check by their husbands, but at Madinah the influence of the Madiniites has changed them, and now they do not listen to us, and keep making demands.
The prophet never hit anyone, not a servant, not a wife, not any one.
An Englishman became a Muslim on reading the accounts of the prophet (saw) by his wives. His view was that throughout history, wives have always complained of their husbands, but here was this man who is being praised by ALL his wives, so his claim of being the last prophet must be true.
A woman came to the prophet (saw), and sought his advice on marrying someone. He said: "Why are you considering marrying him. He is known to be a wife-beater."
Those who beat their wives, and think the religion allows it, are wrong. Why and when did it enter the practice of some Muslims, I am not sure of, but I think mot of our ills come from after the fall of Baghdad. Some scholars do allow this, albeit light, and they take it from the story of Job, about the authenticity of which I am not sure.
What happens or happened in Afghanistan or Pakistan or in many Muslim lands is largely
because the scholars did not have access to the original sources. Arabic is not their language, and they learn the interpretation from their particular creeds.
No one in my family, very extended one at that, has ever beaten his wife, but I do know people who do. Mostly they come from villages which have been cut off from education, and which are steeped in village traditions. Education, and the stresses of coping with urban rush, unhiunges them a little. Then there is definitely a streak of the feudal mind seeking control, in some of them.
The death penalty for apostates is also misunderstood. It is applicable when apostacy
exists in conjunction with open rebellion, otherwise to all intenets and purposes, most of us pass through a phase of questioning which can be considered apostacy. If that punishment had been applied, many of us would have been dead.
Islam does not allow partaking of alcohol, so the argument about intoxication an rape is invalid. The charge of drunk when driving is valid, isn't it.
The fundamental difference that we have in approach is that of sovereignty. Islam says man (generic, women are included) was created as a viceroy (not owner, not independent lawmaker) of God.
The West thinks that it has learnt from the mistakes of the past civilisations, and that the road ahead is progress.
We think that mankind goes through cycles of same or similar transgressions, as we are to be tested, before the final judgement.
I have considered and concluded that Allah's words are in our interest, and that I do not accept that everything that democracy or philosophy puts up is in the interest of mankind. You do have the right to take your pick.
These differences do not mean perpetual or civil war.