Mrs. Quinet mentioned in class that some Islamic countries cut off the hands of thieves as a matter of Shari'ah law; I found the specific quote, on the middle of page 1017 in the Norton: "As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their hands to punish them for their crimes. That is the punishment enjoined by God." (1017) Not to rip on Islam, but that is a pretty unambiguous commandment--if you're going to take the Qur'an as the word of God and basis of the state it seems like it would be hard to get around it.
From an areligious perspective, it shows the problem with laying out a complete, practical guide for life. Unlike, say, the Bhagavad-Gītā, which is much more ambiguous and open to interpretation, or even the New Testament, the Qur'an is filled with very explicit passages, which can much more easily become anachronistic than a more philosophical text. I think that frankly there are parts of the Qur'an, such as this and the passage that encourages men to beat their wives, which are irreconcilable with modern ideas of human rights. This creates a tricky situation, since political correctness and a healthy respect for diversity require that we tolerate other religious beliefs, and yet one of the largest religions in the world holds as the final revelation of the word of God a 1,400-year-old text that inevitably contains some 1,400-year-old injustices. Of course, the Bible and other religious texts contain comparably anachronistic passages (e.g. 1 Peter 3:7: "Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex, since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life" (NRSV)), but since most such passages are much less prescriptive than the Qur'an, they don't stand out as much and they are more easily circumvented.