Consider a situation in which an individual does not have enough to eat but other people, Muslims or dhimmis, (Dhimmis: non-Muslims living under the protection of an Islamic government. (Trans.)) in his community have excess food. In such a case he does not fulfill the stipulation of being in a state of necessity and consequently haram foods do not becpermissible to him, for an Islamic community is like a single body supporting its members or like a fortified wall in which each brick strengthensthe other.

The concept of social solidarity is expressed very forcefully by the great jurist Imam Ibn Hazm, who said, The Muslim is not in a state of necessity such that it becomes permissible for him to eat the flesh of dead animals or swine as long as someone else, whether a Muslim or a dhimmi, has excess food. It is obligatory on the person having food to feed the one who is hungry, and that being the case, the hungry person is not compelled to resort to the flesh of dead animals or swine. If the person having excess food denies it to him, he has a right to fight for it. If he (the hungry person) is killed, the killer is guilty of murder and consequently subject to qisas (retaliation), while if he kills the denier of food he has dispatched him to the curse of Allah, as he denied him his right and was one of the rebellious. Allah Ta'ala says: 'And if one of them transgresses against the other, fight against the one who transgresses until he complies with the command of Allah.' (49:9)

One who denies the rights of his brother is a rebel against Allah. That is why Abu Bakr al-Siddiq fought against those who refused to pay zakat (while professing to be Muslims). (Al-Muhalla by Ibn Hazm, vol. 6, p. 159.)