If it is causing you to fear, you must defend yourself.If you are beating up your wife because you "fear her disobedience", that is *not* self defense and only an idiot could claim that the beating is in self defense.
I said that if you swing something in air (without actual intention to “hit the air”), you are setting it forth. However, you would also be striking the air. The actual action of swinging it could be emulated in any position where you might hit something more material (e.g. a table). Of course, intention is the best judge of word-choice.- striking the air cannot actually strike the air , therefore it means set forth upon the air
Yes, because every time you hit something, you are performing the action of setting forth. The intention to hit the neck means that the most direct word-choice is “strike”.- strike upon the neck is actually set forth upon the neck (even though one can actually strike the neck)
For reasons presented. Sunni/Shia add lots of things to make it work, yet you do not find that funny on a theological base.- if you translate as beat, then the beating is in self defense - that is the husband can beat the wife out of fear of her disobedience.
It’s all in the wording. The word was always translated as “set forth”, if you look at the other usages in Qur’an.- idhrib has been wrongly translated as "beat" for centuries dating back to the time of mo (and the proof is that the messed up mess says so)
Of course, you missed the point. With sound logic we can give moral reform momentum. More specifically (in this case), we give Islamic reform momentum. It is actually the only point in talking about anything here.Did I miss anything?