What is the correct interpretation of verses 15 and 16 of Surah An-Nisa, taking into account the problems arising from multiple interpretations, and is it possible that verse 16 clarified the ruling for male and female fornicators at a different time than verse 15, and that the omission of mentioning the punishment for men in verse 15 was due to divine wisdom?

Scholars have differed in interpreting verses (An-Nisa: 15-16), and exegetes have raised issues with each opinion. Among these issues are:

1. Regarding the view that the two verses refer to adulterers in general: How can the dual form in the phrase "اللذان يأتيانها" (the two who commit it) encompass a general meaning? The answer to this is that the dual form refers to two types: men and women (predominance), or the married and unmarried among men. Based on the first aspect, the verse would have prescribed one punishment for women (imprisonment) and one punishment for men (harm). This view implies equality between the married and unmarried of both genders. Based on the second aspect, the punishment for men would be harm (whether married or unmarried), while for women it would be imprisonment.

2. Regarding the view that the first verse ("اللاتي يأتين الفاحشة" - those who commit indecency) is about the previously married woman, and the second ("اللذان يأتيانها" - the two who commit it) is about the virgin: Where is the punishment for the married man? And why differentiate between the virgin and the previously married without textual evidence? The answer to this is that the married man is included with the married woman in the punishment. The second verse's specificity to virgins is explained by the fact that imprisonment was a stricter punishment for previously married women before the revelation of the Hadd punishment for adultery, while harm was lighter for virgins.

3. Regarding the view that the first verse is about lesbianism and the second is about sodomy: Why does the meaning of "فاحشة" (indecency) differ between the two verses? The answer to this is that "فاحشة" encompasses all abominable acts, such as adultery, sodomy, and lesbianism. The statement of Abu Muslim al-Isfahani that the first refers to lesbianism and the second to sodomy is preferred by some exegetes, who cite the difference in the plural and dual forms as evidence.

4. Regarding the fourth issue (overlapping with the first and second issues): How can imprisonment and harm be combined in punishment when harm cannot be inflicted upon someone who is imprisoned? The answer to this is that the first verse was revealed before the second. So, there was harm, then imprisonment, then lashing or stoning. It is also said that the first verse refers to two previously married individuals, and the second to two virgins. Some exegetes prefer that the second verse refers to sodomy, in which case there would be no issue.

5. Regarding the fifth issue: Why are two punishments (imprisonment and harm) combined for the woman, while the man has only one punishment (harm)? The answer to this, according to those who believe in equality in punishment, is that women are more involved in matters of lust, so they were specifically mentioned first. Or, imprisonment for the woman is to prevent her from sin, while the man needs to go out and earn a living. Some opinions hold that the first verse refers to the previously married woman and the second to the virgin, so the harm would not be shared.

In summary of the opinions on the two verses, according to those who say they are abrogated: The punishment for married or unmarried male and female adulterers was imprisonment until death. This was then abrogated by harm (reproach and public shaming), which was then abrogated by the Hadd punishment of lashing and exile for the unmarried, and lashing and stoning for the previously married. The punishment for previously married individuals was imprisonment until death, and the punishment for virgins was harm. The first verse is general for the female adulterer (whether previously married or virgin), and the second verse is general for the male adulterer (whether previously married or virgin). This is considered the soundest view by some scholars.