And it is reported from Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). Ibn Mas'ud asked Umar about someone who steals from the public treasury, and he said: "Send him away, for there is no one who does not have a right in this property." Sa'id said: Hushaym narrated to us, Mugheerah informed us, from al-Sha'bi, from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), that he used to say: "There is no amputation for one who steals from the public treasury." This is because he has a right in the property, so it constitutes an ambiguity (shubhah) that prevents the obligation of amputation, just as if he had stolen from property in which he has a share. Whoever steals from the spoils of war (ghanimah) and is someone who has a right in it, or is a child of one who has a right, or his master, or someone whose stolen property does not necessitate amputation, he is not to be amputated for that. If he is not among those who are entitled to the spoils, nor one of those we mentioned, and he steals from it before the deduction of the one-fifth (khums), he is not to be amputated, because he has a right in the khums. If the khums is deducted and he steals from the four-fifths, he is to be amputated. If he steals from the khums, he is not to be amputated. If the khums is divided into five parts, and he steals from the share of Allah Almighty and His Messenger, he is not to be amputated; but if he steals from another part, he is to be amputated, unless he is from those entitled to that particular share.

Section: If one steals from an endowment (waqf), or its proceeds, and he is among those for whom it is endowed—such as a poor person stealing from an endowment for the poor, or from a group of people specifically endowed upon—there is no amputation for him, because he is a partner. If he is not among them, he is to be amputated, because he has no right to it. If it is said: You have stated that there is no amputation for stealing from the public treasury, without distinguishing between rich and poor, so why did you make a distinction here? We say: Because the rich man has a right in the public treasury, and that is why Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "There is no one who does not have a right in this property." This is unlike the endowment for the poor, for the rich man has no right in it.

Section: Ahmad said: There is no amputation during a famine (maja'ah). He means that if a person in need steals what he can eat, there is no amputation for him, because he is like one under duress (mudtarr). Al-Juzajani narrated from Umar that he said: "There is no amputation in a year of famine." He said: I asked Ahmad about it, and I said: "Do you hold this opinion?" He said: "Yes, by my life, I do not amputate him when necessity forces him, and people are in hardship and famine." The same is narrated from al-Awza'i. This is understood as applying to one who cannot find food to buy, or cannot find anything with which to buy it, for he has an ambiguity in taking what he eats or what he uses to buy food. It has been reported from Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that the servants of Hatib ibn Abi Balta'ah slaughtered a camel belonging to al-Muzani, and Umar ordered their amputation, then he said to Hatib: "I see that you are starving them." Thus, he warded off the amputation from them when he [thought that he] was starving them. As for one who finds what he can eat, or finds what he can buy food with, he is subject to amputation, even if it is at a high price. This was mentioned by al-Qadi, and it is the school of al-Shafi'i. There is no amputation for a wife if the husband withholds her due sustenance or that of her child, and she takes from his property, regardless of whether she takes the equivalent of that or more; because she is entitled to that amount, and the excess is considered shared by what she is entitled to take. Likewise, there is no amputation for a guest if he is denied his hospitality and takes from the host's property for that reason.