But what if some people have different views of Sharia? For instance some hanafis (including me) do not believe in the necessity of stoning. Just as the Ottoman Khilafa believed as just one person was officially stoned in the entire 600 year rule of the empire. But we have Daesh which comes up and stones a couple of women in its first few months. These things scare me. I disagree with you Abu Juwairiya. We cannot apply sharia like it was 100% back then. It does not fit into the 21st century world. Rather a blend of democracy, local customs, and Islamic morals is the way forward. I do not think that the prophet completely ignored the culture of his time. Neither did he ignore the world's developments. So neither should we.
Assalammu Alaikum and Jazakallah Khayrun Brother Mehmet Hilmi. First of all, it is not for me (Abu Juwairiya) to decide if Shariah law of the 7th Century, the 14th Century or even the last century the world will ever see, should be applied to the time in which the present day or future generations should abide by. Second, it is also not for the highest and most knowledgeable academic (or non academic) secularists [Muslim or Non Muslim] to decide this either. So who should and can decide then and how should they do so? That is where it can be scary!
The only people who can the authority to do so are those best trained to do so; the Scholars (as long as they actually do so) and the leaders of governments who choose to follow Shariah [I shall refer to them as those 'with authority' as mentioned in the Qur'an] (and certainly not the novice Abu Juwairiya!). However, is that where it ends, what about differences in interpretation of Shariah, namely the Maddhabs and by the Scholars and government leaders who follow Shariah, not anyone else.
As the Schools of thought emerged after the Messenger of Allah (SAW), the Scholars since then have determined the following rules-
1. Ahadith: The strongest, most authentic Ahadith and most widely accepted with the best Sanad should take precedence for most (or all where possible) legal rulings where Ahadith is or needs to be consulted.
2. Ijma and Qiyas. Where something is new or was not available at the time of the Messenger of Allah (SAW), the nearest similar things are looked at for guidance to make acceptable rulings in accordance with that. Where nothing is found in that respect, then the same rules are applied for something that may have happened during the lifetimes and rule of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and if not there, then at any specific time of a highly acceptable ruler. In the absence of that, the Scholars and government leaders who follow Shariah make a ruling as close as possible to the rules of the issue in question being more or less harmful to society in general. Issues that have risen in this respect have been about smoking, drugs, cloning, FGM (Forced for girls) among other things.
3. Stoning: The Qur'an does not mention stoning (as far as I know) as the means for execution of those who commit adultery. Even Ahadith does not do so either, although there are several instances where it is mentioned where it happened with the Prophet's (SAW) watchful eye. The point is execution is the ruling given for adultery. The reason being Western law is based on the Old Roman Model where morality is against the person and Murder is against the State. In Islam, immorality (in some forms such as Adultery) is against the State, while Murder is against the person. In this manner the killer is either forgiven and made to pay blood money (Diya) to the relatives of the deceased while immorality (from where either social evils can stem from and easily accelerate) can seriously harm the well being, general stature of the entire social and religious foundation of the society itself. You will also find many Islamic governments that have governed with shariah have not applied stoning, but have implemented execution.
4. The application of other systems, namely democracy, capitalism, federalism, socialism etc along with Shariah. Firstly, the questions arise, did the Prophet (SAW) look at the cultural and political systems of the time or of earlier times? I will leave that to those who have more knowledge than me, as I am not equipped with sufficient Islamic knowledge to answer that question and what I do know, I do not want to mix with what could be false or partially true, so I absolve myself of the possibility of saying something that could be true, misleading or interpreted to be something I did not intend them to be.
Second, in the absence of the Prophet (SAW) doing so or actually doing so, can we the later generations do so alongside Shariah and to what degree? Again, the answer to the questions is it is not for us to decide but for the Scholars and leaders of governments who follow Shariah and them alone. Outside of those two, almost everyone else is excluded from making those decisions; the reasons for doing so are precisely because what I mentioned earlier; the consequences will outweigh the positives and those with insufficient expertise in doing so will make very harmful decisions to Islamic society.
Remember in the age of the Social Media, everyone's opinions can (but mostly not) count as a 'fatwa' and if anyone takes it as being Islamically correct and it isn't you are as accountable as the next person for misleading information. If anyone acts on this information and does so with criminal action, then the person who gave the 'fatwa' is a little accountable for it.
Last, when I mentioned the need for governments to implement Shariah alone as the system of the constitution, I spoke of it as the only method to rule for an Islamic society. In this sense, can there be room for democracy or other isms or other ideologies, I referred to Shariah being accepted as the only source of the constitution, this I still maintain. However, the point of differentiation is how much the other isms can be used as secondary to Shariah and to help as an accessory to accepting Shariah.
5. Local Customs: As you correctly mentioned, the Prophet (SAW) did not ignore local cultures and neither should we. The point of difference is where it is in conflict with Shariah, then religion takes precedence over culture. However, even then 'sensitivities' are permitted to come into play along with context. Where a given people may not be able to accept certain rulings or laws, some re-evaluation or minor adjustments are permitted, again by 'those in authority' and only by them.
6. Application of 100% Shariah as it was at the time of the Prophet. If anyone interpreted this as Shariah being completely rigid, inflexible, unchangeable and fully set in stone in all things, then I am sorry for the inference. This is neither plausible, possible, theoretically tangible nor feasibly attainable. There were literally dozens of modifications immediately after the Prophet's death, hundreds during the rule of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and thousands after them (among the just rulers that is). What is unchangeable are the principles upon Islam is based, the Divine Rulings set in the Qur'an and some of those in Ahadith with a firm grounding of support among the Companions and Classical Mufasireen who had evidence to support their assertions and personal rulings.
I hope this brief analysis is helpful as a less than brilliant response from a novice with no experience or training. I have presented what I know from knowledge from personal research of the Classical Mufasirren, the works of those who have done research on the early history of political Islam and Islamic rulers. As such, I welcome any statements that give a better understanding of Deen and where I am wrong, to better educate the Ummah. Wasallam, Abu Juwairiya.