If @cooli3o thinks shariah is outdated thats up to him. I also held such beliefs however i changed my views overtime.
I don't believe that he is misrepresnting my views, I believe the shariah is applied in a specific time and place, and since our society has changed so much, we need to see if the conditions to apply the shariah hudood or certain rulings apply
and btw, all throughout Islamic history, there has been argument and dispute and ikhtilaaf amongst the scholars about when to apply shareeah and how. Because applying a certain law has implications and effects.
the simplest way to argue this is umar ibnul khattab removed the punishment for theft due to the poverty of his people, now if a person looked over islamic texts without any insight or a teacher, he would think this hudood would be applied unrestricted, but a real Aalim, would understand the objective behind the hudood, and then see if it applies, during the poverty of his ppl, Umar ibnul khataab RA saw that the hudood shouldnt be applied, as people needed to steal sometimes to survive, therefore punishing him wouldnt be fair nor would it deter people from stealing as they need to
we also see how Umar ibnul khattab changed the ruling on talaq, and all thorughout Islamic hitoury scholars have taken different opinions due to changing circumstances
my main argument was, murtads, were executed during the beginning of Islam could have been for a different reason than we think, this is because, the way they lived in the past, religion is part of your nationality, and going against Islam is basically declaring war on the religion and your people, and setting up divide, and then potentially killing. as we can see, during the khaleefah of abu bakr RA, he went to war with the people who refused to give zakah, they went to war with the munaafiqs and after umar ibnul khattab RA their was constant fighting, until the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasalams grandsons died in battle.
Now when you see this, you see, when the Munafiqoon amognst the companions came out, they always spread shirk and fasaad and bloodshed throughout the earth, by seperating from the main Muslim group, either by shirk or alse beliefs, they are making a direct attack agaisnt Islam and the Muslim community.
but we also see cases, where non-muslims, lived in a seperate land to Muslims but in the same country, so the Muslims and christians lived under the same rule, but seperate societies, we see alot like this, so we see, Muslims have always been living amognst or near ppl of shirk, we also see dhimmis in the muslim lands, so the question is, if shirk was such a fitna for Muslims that we have to murder them, then why allow dhimmis? why allow Muslims to lvie near lands of mushrikeen, why allow Muslims to intermingle with non-muslims for sake of buisness education etc.. if shirk is that much of a fitna
this is just one part of my argument, but the point is, in the past munaafiqoon saught to destroy the Islamic community when they apostated, instead of just keeping silent or moving lands, or whatever, nowadays, we have to look at our countries, is someone apostating in a so called Muslim country opposing the government and Islamic society? or are they just living their own life away from the Muslims and saying they don't believe.
sunnah.com
who are cucking themselves to cadaan people to be accepted by shitting on islam for them.
