Abbas, Mujahid, and those who follow them, like Abil Jafar al-Nal}i)as, maintain that the first verse deals exclusively with adultery committed by women, whether thayb or virgins, whereas the second verse deals with adultery committed by men, both thayb and virgins; and that both of the verses have been abrogated by the flogging-and-stoning ruling.٣٨ Whatever the case, as mentioned by Abu Bakr al-Ja a . the community has not disagreed that both rulings about the male or female adul‌ terer have been abrogated.٣٩
The truth is that neither of the two verses has been abrogated. The following is
the explanation.
The word al-fal:zisha (lewdness) means an act that is excessively evil and abomi‌ nable. This applies to the act when it occurs between two women, which is tribady; and between two men, which is sodomy; and between a man and a woman, which is adultery. There is no specific meaning for fal:zisha, neither lexically nor idiomati‌ cally, to suggest it is synonymous with fornication. Moreover, holding that the first verse [Q. ٤:١٥] was abrogated is contingent on the following: first, that the "confin‌ ing to the house" is the maximum punishment (l:zadd) for committing the act of lewd‌ ness, and, second, that "appointing the way" means that the stoning-and-flogging rule is applied to the woman.
Neither point can be proved. The apparent sense of the verse suggests that the confine‌ ment of the woman to the house is designed to make it impossible for her to commit the abominable act again, and that this is therefore a way of forestalling an evil act. This kind of anticipatory action is established in all important matters, such as those pertaining to the protection of a persons honor, life, and crucial interests. In fact, some scholars are of the opinion that these preventive measures should be applied to all repre‌ hensible acts. On the other hand, the apparent sense of appointing a way for the woman who has committed an abominable act is that it appoints for her a way by means of which she can relieve herself of the punishment [in the hereafter]. Accordingly, how can it be stoning and flogging? Would a sensible woman, confined to the house, living comfortably, be willing to be stoned or flogged? Moreover, how can flogging or stoning be a way for her? And if that is a way for her, then what would be the way against her?
According to the preceding, it may be true that the wordfal:zisha in the first verse refers, in particular, to tribady; and in the second (Q. ٤:١٦), to sodomy. (We shall explain this later.) But it may also refer to something more general than tribady and adultery. On the basis of these two probable meanings, the ruling is the obligatory confinement to the house of the woman who has committed an abominable act, until God sets her free, whereupon she would be allowed to go out. This would be either because of her sincere repentance, which should safeguard her from committing the abominable act again; or because she is no longer capable of lewdness due to old age and the like; or because of her inclination to get married and be wedded to a man who would take care of her; or because of any such steps that would safeguard her from committing lewdness. This ruling remains in force. As for flogging or stoning, it is another rulinglegislated in order to punish both men and women who have com‌ mitted an abominable act, and this latter ruling is alien to the first ruling. Therefore, there is no reason for it to be an abrogator of it.
In other words, the first injunction was legislated to prevent the recurrence of the
abominable act; and the second injunction was legislated as a chastisement for the