Is the hand to be amputated (Qat') for theft committed during severe famine or need?

Primary text

Amputation is not incumbent upon a person who steals what they need to eat due to severe need or famine, as they are considered like one compelled (mudtar). Ahmad holds this view, stating he would not amputate if need and public hardship drove the theft. Al-Awza'i shares this position. This ruling applies to one who cannot find means to purchase sustenance. Evidence supporting leniency is found in the report that 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, initially ordered the amputation of the thieves (servants of Hatib ibn Abi Balta'ah) who slaughtered a she-camel, but then waived the amputation when he realized Hatib was causing them to starve. However, if the thief possesses means to acquire food or the means to purchase it, amputation is obligatory, even if the price is high, according to the position held by Al-Qadi and the Madhhab of Al-Shafi'i.