Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 212-214 (items 1033-1037) writes that according to At-Tabari, verses
And
And
And
were all abrogated by
The claim is that meat slaughtered by the people of the Book is now allowed to Muslims when it was not before, even if the name of God is not mentioned before the slaughter. At-Tabari rejects all those claims and Dr. Zayd agrees with him, on the basis that this is a case of specification rather than abrogation. I think they probably meant exemption.
In fact, that is the exact word used in the narration quoted as evidence for abrogation:
عن ابن جرير الطبري قال: حدثنا ابن حميد قال: حدثنا يحيى بن واضح، عن الحسين بن واقد، عن يزيد، عن عكرمة والحسن البصري، قالا: قال: (فكلوا مما ذكر اسم الله عليه إن كنتم بآياته تؤمنون. ومالكم ألا تأكلوا مما ذكر اسم الله عليه) إلى قوله: (وإنه لفسق) فنسخ واستثنى من ذلك، فقال: (وطعام الذين أوتوا الكتاب حل لكم وطعامكم حل لهم) اهـ
Translation:
Narrated At-Tabari attributing to Al-Hasan and Ikrima that they said, "He said 'So, eat from what the name of God was mentioned on [before slaughter], if, in His signs, you are believers...' (6:118-121) Then He
amended and exempted by saying, 'And the food of the People of the Book is lawful to you..."
Dr. Zayd highlights in the footnotes that naskh meant exemption to Al-Hasan and Ikrima.
See also "
Did the Sunna or 5:5 abrogate 2:173?"