The way Abu-Abdillah Shu`la phrases his support for this claim is noteworthy. He says in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, pages 123-124, (my translation and emphasis),
"The first verse (4:15) ordained that the judgment against a female adulterer or fornicator is lockup until she dies. The second (4:16) ordained that the judgment against both adulterers is pain, either by striking with shoes or vulgar talk or likewise of pain methods. Thus, it
became clear from the two verses that the judgment against female adulterers is pain and prison together and the judgment against male adulterers is pain only.
That was in the beginning of Islam, then God abrogated that
with punitives (الحدود); He abrogated, in regard to the female fornicator, with flogging and exile. Not all scholars have ruled for exile. Abu-Haneefa, Hammaad ibn Sulaymaan and Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan rejected the exile. The three Imaams ruled it. Among those who ruled for flogging before stoning are Ali, Al-Hasan, Ibn Raahaweh and Ibn Hanbal - in one report - and Daawood. [But] "The Three" (presumably Maalik, Ash-Shaafi`i and Ibn Hanbal) ruled against flogging."
It is hard to know where to begin, but I'll try.
- How can the conclusion be made that 4:15 and 4:16 may be combined, when 4:15 clearly talks about females only and 4:16 clearly talks about males only?
- Shu`la avoided saying that God, or His Messenger, have ruled lockup and/or pain in the beginning. That was wise of him, since there is no evidence to back up such allegation. Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in the footnotes, reports a narration attributed to Ibn Abbaas, in which he says, "It was the case that when a woman fornicated, she was locked up at home until she died. And when a man fornicated, he was hurt with name calling and hitting him with shoes. Until God revealed 24:2. And if they were married, they were stoned per the Sunna of the Prophet (PBUH) and that is the way out which God has made for her."
If stoning to death is a way out (!), then how come the man is also stoned when God did not promise him a way out?
It is also clear that Ibn Abbaas, if the narration is authentic, had no proof that the lockup and pain were ordained by God or His Messenger, or else he would have said so.
- Shu`la's statement that "God abrogated that with punitives" implies that lockup and pain were not punitive. But how can that be if they are so clearly specified by God in the Quran?
- Shu`la kept saying "God abrogated...", but also kept pointing out differences between scholars about the abrogating method! How can God abrogate something He stated clearly with something that is vague and requires interpretation that leads to differences of ruling? Where in the Quran, or the authentic Hadeeth can one find any statement that says that God abrogated His lockup and pain rulings? Nowhere.
All of this confusion and contradictory opinions can very easily be settled when one relaizes that 4:15-16 were not talking about adultery or fornication at all. They were about homosexuality. That was the opinion of Mujaahid, a second generation scholar who preceded all the scholars Shu`la referenced. And why didn't Shu`la refer to Mujaahid at all? Wouldn't it have been more scholarly to do that?