TheMostReadBook.org

Professor Ahmed Ibrahim (Bek), rahimahullah, states in his book علم أصول الفقه, that

was abrogated by

because it has modified the general punishment for unproven accusation of married women of adultery and made a specific punishment for the special case of a man accusing his own wife.

I do not see this as abrogation, but rather as a completion of the ruling. In other words, the two verses convey the following consistent ruling,
"If a man accuses a woman of fornication and cannot substantiate the charge with witnesses then if the woman is his own wife, he and she must go through the Li`aan procedure. If the woman is not his wife and he cannot substantiate the charge with witnesses, he is flogged eighty times and permanently discredited."

Dr. Mustafa Zayd's refutation of this claim, on page 113 (item 843) of volume 2 of his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, is that it is a specification of a generality. That is, 24:6 specifies a particular ruling for spouses who accuse their spouses of adultery.

In this case, it is patently clear that the first ruling was not annulled, so again it is a case where 'abrogation' is used in a sense other than annulment.

For:
Professor Ahmed Ibrahim (Bek).

Against:
Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas, Ibn Al-Jawzi (according to Dr. Zayd),
Muhammad Al-Ghazaali,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.