Is it permissible for the Sharia Committee in a liberated area to carry out the hudud punishments, such as qisas (retribution in kind), cutting off the hand of a thief, and killing a spy or a captive, or must they rule with a suspended sentence until a state is established with appointed judges?

If the people appoint a ruler and pledge obedience to him, then it becomes obligatory upon him to enforce the hudud (prescribed punishments) and to deal with prisoners and others in a manner that best serves the interests of the Muslims, to the extent possible. If they are unable to do so, the obligation is lifted. If enforcing the hudud leads to a greater corruption than its benefit, then they should not be enforced. As for when the people do not have an obedient authority, the enforcement of the hudud is only to be carried out by the ruler, because he is the one capable of enforcing them. If there are multiple imams, then each imam is obligated to enforce the hudud. If the ruler is unable to enforce the hudud or neglects them, then it becomes obligatory upon those who are capable to enforce them. The principle is that these obligations should be performed in the best possible manner. If they cannot be performed except by a few and without a ruler, they should still be performed if their performance does not lead to a corruption greater than their neglect.