If you think that every order or judgment of the Prophet must be taken as is, without regard for situational context; the circumstances in which it was said, to whom it was said, and so on; and that it must be duplicated by all people for all time to come; that makes as much sense as believing that any time the Muslims go to war they should always set up camp at the wells of Badr.
No, the process of deducing rulings is more nuanced than that. It must be understood that there is perhaps nothing more key in the activation of a law or the applicability of a ruling than context. It seems to me that the reasonable position on Shari’ah in the modern age is that rulings pertaining to worship are as they are, but rulings pertaining to the management of society are inevitably subject to context. Remember that Umar bin Al Khattab himself suspended the Hudood during the great drought.
Our reflex reaction to any criticism of Shari’ah rulings (which are usually actually Fiqh opinions) is to double down on their necessity, because very often the opposition to them is not, in fact, reasoned, but comes as a result of pure animosity and irrational bias. These critics are not sincerely interested in what is best for society, they are just ideological automatons. This makes it hard for us to maintain a rational and reasonable position; and too frequently we allow ourselves to become fixated on promoting our own ideology in response. Any dialogue that is essentially nothing more than a collision of ideologies is a waste of time, and potentially destructive.
“…Let not hatred of any people prevent you from dealing with them justly…”
It is crucial for us to maintain rational objectivity and to carefully avoid our own ideological biases.