This study examines how the hadd punishment imposed for theft during the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab was evaluated in the context of the material and spiritual conditions of Islamic criminal law, as well as social, economic, and emergency situations. The punishment of amputation prescribed in the Quran for the crime of theft (Maida 5:38) is not considered an absolute ruling but is evaluated in relation to certain conditions. These conditions include the stolen property exceeding a certain value (nisab), the property being taken from a protected place, the crime being committed secretly and intentionally, the perpetrator being of sound mind and age, and not being in a state of necessity. The practices of Caliph Umar demonstrate how important these conditions are. During extraordinary periods such as famine and drought, thefts committed by people to meet their basic needs were considered by Umar as cases of necessity, and no punishment was imposed. For example, in the case of a pregnant camel being stolen and slaughtered, Umar ruled that the conditions for hadd punishment were not met, taking into account the hunger and poverty of the people. Another example is the case of Hatib b. Abi Belteʿa’s slaves stealing property belonging to their master. Caliph Omar stated that the slaves already had limited rights of disposal over their master’s property, and therefore, it could not be considered theft in the classical sense, and thus no punishment was imposed. This approach reflects a comprehensive assessment based not only on the crime but also on the circumstances of the perpetrator, property relations, and social reality. Fiqh scholars have based Umar’s approach on fiqh principles such as “had punishments are waived in cases of doubt” and “necessity makes the forbidden permissible.” In particular, the Hanafi school of jurisprudence systematized such interpretations, stating that hadd punishments could be shaped not only by literal (verbal) interpretations but also by principles such as public interest (maslahat), justice, and necessity. The era of Umar ibn al-Khattab demonstrates that Islamic criminal law can be applied not with a formalistic and rigid understanding, but with a flexible approach based on social justice, human needs, and social conditions, grounded in moral responsibility and public interest. In this context, it has been established that hadd punishments are not fixed rules but are evaluated within a dynamic system that considers social benefit and the individual’s circumstances. This approach is also consistent with the universal understanding of justice in Islamic criminal law.