Dr. Az-Zalmi, in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 200-207, covers this claim with much detail. His refutation of it is identical to Al-Asfahaani's argument, but he does not mention him! He also dismisses one of the arguments of those who advocate abrogation in this case, namely, that the abrogating is the stoning ruling, by saying that the Sunna cannot abrogate the Quran.
He does elaborate on why he sees 4:15 specific to women and cannot possibly include men, namely, the use of the relative pronoun
اللاتي, which is never used, explicitly or otherwise to refer to or include men. Thus, 4:15 is about female homosexuality only.
He answers your question, Pragmatic, in this
previous post, that the "way out" mentioned in 4:15, is marriage. He quotes the exegesis of Ar-Raazi and Az-Zamakhshari on that.
Likewise, Az-Zalmi says, is the indication of the relative pronoun
اللذان which can only be used for two men. Thus, 4:16 is about male homosexuality only. I don't think that one is accurate.
Az-Zalmi then explains that the issue of whether the Sunna has abrogated 24:2 is indeterminate, since it is not known when the stoning incidents occurred relative to the revelation of 24:2.
Then, Az-Zalmi brings out an excellent point. He says that if 24:2 did abrogate 4:15-16, then the penalty for homosexuality should also have been a hundred floggings, but no scholars said so, except one report from Ash-Shafi`i and some Maalikis, and no judges have so ruled! Instead, the rulings have been that homosexuals are disciplined (التعزير).
Finally, Az-Zalmi asserts the same argument of Al-Asfahaani regarding the way out, as you quoted in
this post above, Pragmatic, namely,
- Explaining the "way" in "God ordains for them [another] way" as stoning or lashing would not be for them but against them, and the expression in 2:286 supports that linguistically.
As for your quote, Pragmatic, from Ihab's book,
- He (Ihab) argues that the word الفاحشة is used in the Quran to denote homosexuality, and he gives as evidence 7:80-81
That is the same argument I used in
this post above, so Ihab can't be all bad!