^if a poor man or a rich man steals the community would have to hear him out and the factors surrounding the action would have to be looked into, sometimes an action initially reported as theft is found to be a misunderstanding, sometimes the victim of the theft consciously and willingly forgives despite the court having ruled in favour of the victim, and sometimes the penalty is carried out in justice. If such a person was indeed starving then the community would need to turn to themselves and see where they're going wrong, the thief would in that case be a co-victim and the community would need to reimburse the person/people stolen from, and in Islam, every human being is entitled at absolute minimum to necessary lawful food that suffices them and the cloth to cover the fard.
It is required to establish Islam in it's entirety for any community to function smoothly, instead of a corrupt unislamic government enforcing zakat whilst neglecting prayer, beheading opponents for treason against the state whilst using shariah to justify it, we need just Islamic courts which demand that people submit to Allah and then within that obedience, to the court.
Then there'd be justice and sane minded people working together positively instead of unjustifiable corruption and wronged people out seeking revenge.
That is what I am saying. one can not apply Law without the basics being met. A person who is starving or has no other source to food except to steal, it would be unjust for a ruler to carry out Hadd punishment on that person, because the basic needs are not met.
When the basic needs are met, only then can we apply Law. If a state is not supplying its citizens with halal alternatives, then the state has no right to apply Law. For before law comes needs.
If I say "If you steal, your hands will be cut", on the surface this is ok, but if I have not provided you with an alternative, i.e. if I didn't give you a source to food, giving you no option except to steal, Hadd punishment would not be applied in this case.
Let me give you an example:
The State legislates that hunting for food is prohibited. The state has not provided the basic needs for the citizens.
The citizens have no source for food except that place for hunting, which the state prohibited. As such, the state can not apply a law prohibiting something before the basic needs are met.
The only way for the State to apply the hunt-ban is to give the citizens an alternative.
Shariah Law is perfect, and Shariah Law gives every person the right for basic needs, such as food, water, clothing etc. If those are not met, then applying the Hadd punishment without giving an alternative, would be unjust.
So no matter how much the State prohibits hunting for food, if the state doesn't give an alternative, the citizens will keep hunting for food from that place, despite the law. So before Law comes the needs.
may Allah :swt: forgive me if I said anything wrong. Ameen.
And Allah :swt: knows best.
