Abrogation in the Book of Allah is of three categories.

The Shaykh : Because abrogation in the Book of Allah is of three categories:
The first is what was abrogated in wording but not in ruling, the second is what was abrogated in ruling but not in wording, and the third is what was abrogated in both wording and ruling. These are three categories. An example of what was abrogated in wording but not in ruling is stoning, for its ruling remains until the Day of Resurrection, but its wording has been abrogated. An example of what was abrogated in ruling but not in wording is the saying of Allah the Exalted: Thus, the first verse was abrogated in ruling but not in wording. As for what was abrogated in both wording and ruling, it is the verse regarding breastfeeding. Muslim narrated this from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her). Thus, the ten breastfeedings were abrogated in both wording and ruling, and the five were abrogated in wording but not in ruling, because the five remain. If someone asks: What is the benefit of abrogating the wording without abrogating the ruling? We say: The benefit of that is testing this Ummah by their acceptance of what came in the Qur'an, even if its wording has been abrogated, in contrast to the Jews who tried to conceal what came in the Torah regarding stoning. The verse of stoning is not in the Qur'an, yet the Muslims implement it, while the verse of stoning is in the Torah, and the Jews try to conceal it. By this, the virtue of this Ummah is made clear by implementing the ruling of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), even if its wording has been abrogated. This is one of the benefits of abrogating the wording: it is a test for this Ummah through obedience. In a hadith, 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "Indeed, stoning is a right for one who commits zina and is muhsan." Do you know what ihsan means in the chapter on the hadd of zina? It is, O Nasser?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : They are two adults, sane, and free, correct? Good. He says: "If clear evidence is established". Clear evidence in the chapter on zina is the most severe of evidences. It is necessary to have four righteous men, as Allah the Exalted said: So it is necessary to have four witnesses who testify explicitly to the act of intercourse. They say: "We saw his penis in her vagina in a single act by a single person." This means the one being witnessed against is one, the woman is one, the man is one, the act is one, and explicitness is necessary. They must be explicit. Testimony of this nature is rare to find; indeed, it is difficult to the point that the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said, and he was in the eighth century: "Zina has not been established through testimony from the time of the Messenger to our day." And a fortiori, from the time of the Shaykh al-Islam to this day, we have not heard that it was established through testimony, because it is a major matter. As the one accused before the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), said: "If we had between our thighs what would testify against us with this testimony, between our thighs means the thighs of the woman and the man, it would not have testified with this testimony." Who is able to see the man's penis in the woman's vagina? This is very difficult. All of this is for the wisdom of being cautious in preserving honor. Therefore, if three men testify that they saw a person committing zina with a woman, his penis in her vagina, each of them is flogged eighty lashes, and the hadd is not established against the one testified against. All of this is to protect the honor of Muslims from being violated, so that any person does not come and testify that so-and-so committed zina or so-and-so committed sodomy, may Allah protect us from that. The matter is very serious. So, clear evidence in the chapter on zina is four righteous men. If four hundred women come and testify to it, they are not accepted. It must be four men. If three come, they are not accepted. He said: "Or if there is pregnancy or confession". Pregnancy is among the evidences, provided the woman does not claim a doubt. When is it among the evidences? If a woman becomes pregnant who has no husband and no master, the hadd is established against her, because it is not possible for a woman to give birth without a male, unless that is a sign from the signs of Allah, as happened to Maryam. If a woman becomes pregnant and she has no husband and no master, she must be stoned if she is muhsanah, provided she does not claim a doubt. If she claims a doubt by saying that she was forced, or that she was penetrated under a doubt, or that she was impregnated by the water of a man, meaning she took the semen and inserted it into her vagina until she became pregnant, then she is not punished, because this is a doubt. And this is what 'Umar said and announced on the minbar of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and it is the truth: that zina is established by the pregnancy of a woman if she has no husband and no master, provided she does not claim a doubt. Some scholars held that she is not punished by pregnancy even if she has no husband and no master. They said: because of the possibility of a doubt. But this opinion is weak and is not suitable for establishing a society, because if we said this, the prostitutes would do whatever they wished, and if they became pregnant, they would be left alone, no one would touch them, and no one would say to them: Where did you get this pregnancy from? The correct view is what 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said. Yes.