What is meant by the claim here?
The point is not to deny that Arabic uses the term “striking” in different senses elsewhere, but to attribute a specific reading to Shahrur: that this passage, within the sequence of admonition, abandonment, and striking, does not permit physically striking one’s wife.
What is attributed to Shahrur
The summary of episode 29 attributes to Shahrur a rejection of the idea that the admonition, abandonment, and striking in the verse constitute “direct physical striking in the common sense.” This attribution needs to be checked against the original episode before being adopted as a quotation or used as the basis for interpretive details.
For a broader connection to the book linked to this atom: Towards New Foundations for Islamic Jurisprudence.
Atlas explanation
The page records a specific negative interpretive claim: the rejection of the direct physical reading. In its currently documented form, it does not record a complete alternative definition of the meaning of “striking.”
Conclusion
If the attribution is confirmed by consulting the recording or raw text, it makes the rejection of justifying physical violence a central conclusion of this reading. Describing the alternative as separation, removal, or an administrative measure should not be included here as an established statement, however, because the available evidence lacks a verbatim text.
Open question
What exact terms did Shahrur use to explain “wa-ḍribūhunna”? Does he specify conditions or practical effects of this understanding? The material available here does not settle this and requires review of episode 29 and the book source linked to it.