I don´t think that he is promoting ISIS, actually quite the opposite.
"But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand" .
It's important when discussing the Qu'ran that it is done so in the correct context.
For the above verse, the
tafsir (commentary/interpretation) of the verse was first compiled by Ibn Abbas (RA), who was one of the best commentators / scholars of the religion. His commentary was thus:
Ibn Abbas, a companion of Muhammad, wrote the earliest commentary on the Quran, and to this part he himself said this is only a light tap. When asked about the light hitting, he said it refers to using a siwak (toothbrush). There are sources that say that
Muhammad himself never hit a woman and forbade it. Furthermore, Muhammad commented on this verse, where he said “a light tap that leaves no mark."
And this is the
last resort after advising, forsaking them etc.
And it's funny you didn't quote the next verse after that one, from Surah an Nisa, verse 35:
And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted [with all things].
Here it shows that any major discord between hubby and wife that can't be solved after those first three things...should lead to two people from either side to help, rather than escalating the 'beating' from a light tap to something more.
So, I think in conclusion, the actual 'strike' is a light tap, as if with a toothbrush. Which translation did you use? Some translations actually make that differentiation in the text.
" And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers."
For this one, again, it's interesting you quote that verse in isolation without looking at the wider context it is used in. rednev has a similar approach. Here's the verses around that particular one:
2:190 Fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors.
2:191 And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful.
2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
I've bolded some of the bits to show you that we are allowed to fight back if we ourselves (the Muslim) is being attacked. If Person A attacks Muslim, then the Muslim is within his rights to fight back. But notice there's not initiation of the fight to Person A from the Muslim. Furthermore, if they stop, there is no further aggression, and it is then haraam for a Muslim to raise his hand against such a person.
In modern times, it doesn't need to go to such an extent as we have laws of the land and regulation that if another person attacks you, you can fight them back without killing them, and if they are captured/arrested they'll be given a trial.
This is why it is important to look at the wider meaning / context rather than pluck out verses as it's easy to portray one thing over another.
Edit: Just to add - (nearly) every verse in the Qu'ran when it talks about these types of thing is followed by one saying 'but peace is better'. And both of us need to understand that this is the way the religion is. That peace is better.
) or spoken tradition.