Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi states that there are two abrogations in 2:173,
He wrote,
الآية السادسة قوله تعالى: "إنما حرم عليكم الميتة والدم" الآية 173 مدنية البقرة 2 فنسخ بالسنة بعض الميتة وبعض الدم بقوله ص أحلت لنا ميتتان ودمان السمك والجراد والكبد والطحال، وقال سبحانه "وما أهل به لغير الله" ثم رخص للمضطر إذ كان غير باغ و لا عاد بقوله تعالى "فلا إثم عليه" اهـ
The two abrogations he asserts are:
- Dead animals - some of them were allowed by the Sunna, per the hadeeth that says, "Two dead animals and two bloods were made lawful to us: fish and locust and liver and spleen.
- Slaughters made in the name of other than God - allowed for dire necessity by the exception phrase that follows it.
Once again, explanation and/or exception is erroneously called abrogation. Dead fish and locust are exemptions from dead animals, and liver and spleen are not what God means by blood.
Then the license to eat any meat for fear of dying confirms God's grace and is an exception from the prohibition of eating the meat slaughtered in a name other than God's.
Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, page 89 (item 815) does not mention the hadeeth (presumably because he rejects the notion that any hadeeth can abrogate any verse), but says that some have claimed that the abrogating here is the exception in the epilogue. He rejects that too since exceptions are not abrogation, because, as Ibn Al-Jawzi put it, with exceptions, both verses can be complied with, while with abrogation, only one of them can be.
However, on page 212 of volume 2, he includes 2:173 in four verses claimed abrogated by
A claim he also rejects. After quoting At-Tabari's opinion, who also rejects the claim, he concludes that this is a case of specification, not abrogation. I think he may have meant exception, i.e., slaughtered meat of the people of the Book is allowed to Muslims, even if the butchers did not mention the name of God before the slaughter.
See also "
Did 5:5 abrogate 6:121, 2:173, 5:3 and 16:115?"