Bro, why are you on my back on this issue? Don't you have better stuff to do? I'm not going to change my opinion on this.
I am not on your back, I just happened to be in this thread. I am not going to let people assume that what you are saying is true because it simply isn't and the fact of the matter is there are hundreds of scholars that agree on what I say and maybe five 'scholars' the agree with your viewpoint.
Also Hamza Yusuf even says that there are four agreed upon hadd punishments. He has always acknowledged the existence of the Hudud, you know where he says it as well as I.
Again, you are taking what he said to mean that we shouldn't have Hadd punishments. This is just not what he meant.
He is saying tat we shouldn't be reducing Islam to the 4 agreed upon Hadd punishments. And that besides the 4 agreed upon Hadd punishments, scholars debate Sharia and that nothing is final.
Also regarding the comment he made about the cutting of the hand, you know that what you are interpreting it as, wasn't what he meant. He says the same exact thing in the video I linked earlier, where he confirms the cutting of hands.
He directly criticizes the hadd punishment for theft.
No he isn't. He is criticising the way people implement it, which he does in the video I linked earlier. In the same exact way.
As for the source of my information. What you are trying to apply to the Hudud punishments is what is called Ta'zir punishment.
Punishment for crime not measuring up to the strict requirements of hadd punishments, although they are of the same nature, or those for which specific punishments have not been fixed by the Quran. Punishments range from the death penalty for espionage and heresy to flagellation, imprisonment, local banishment, and a variety of fines. Determination of punishment is left to the judge or chief executive, who can vary the punishment according to a number of criteria including who has inflicted the crime and upon whom.
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2363
I'll give you more sources if you wish, but this part of the Sharia is something that nobody denies, from Salafi to Ash'ari scholars.
This is, of course, what Ibn Qayyim was referring to when he says that the Sharia is subject to the time and place in which it is being implemented. No scholars denies that Sharia is subject to the people of the time, but this is in terms of Ta'zir crimes and punishments, not the Hudud.
Also, I keep talking to you because, quite honestly, I agree with a lot of the other stuff you have to say. I think you are a pretty smart guy from the comments I've seen from you, but I'd strongly recommend that you talk to a scholar in person about the nuances of the Sharia.