Remarkable that this went unnoticed.
Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 100-101, pointed out that Ibn Al-Arabi, Ibn Hazm, and Ibn Abbaas in one narration which convinced An-Nahhaas, all recognized that 4:15 is about women and 4:16 is about men (was that hard to see?), yet none of them thought the two verses talk about homosexuality! They all just assumed they talk about heterosexual fornication.
Al-Ghaali then proceded to present the arguments which refute the abrogation claim,
- Ibn Al-Arabi rejected the abrogation claim because he observed that verse 4:15 is timed. When the time came, verse 24:2 was revealed.
- Mujaahid, Al-Asfahaani, and Ibn Katheer recognized that the verses talk about homosexuality. Az-Zamakhshari also mentioned that. Ar-Raazi leaned to it. Muhammad Abduh also chose that.
- Al-Ghaali sees significance in distinguishing the genders in 4:15-16 from that in 24:2 and distinguishing their penalty in order to make clear that the three verses talk about three different sins. Muhammad Abduh made a point of it saying that the Quran thus did not leave out any ruling about the three types of illicit sexual intercourse.
- Muhammad Abduh had an explanation as to why 4:15 refers to a plural of women while 4:16 refers to a dual of men. He suggested that male homosexuality is considered in society to be more shameful than female homosexuality, thus it is unlikely that the former will be known past the two while the latter may be.
- As-Suyuti, in his exegesis تفسير الجلالين, understood 4:16 to be referring to two homosexual men.
- The word الفاحشة, which caused many scholars to think it meant adultery, has been used in the Quran to refer to homosexual intercourse, e.g.,
Al-Ghaali also mentioned how Al-Asfahaani explained the option in 4:15,
أو يجعل الله لهن سبيلا (or God sets for them a venue), that it is a fulfilling marriage. Muhammad Abduh agreed.