Nasai

Imam al-Nasa'i rahimahullah intends to say that the mawquf narration reported by Ash'ath ibn Sawwar from Jabir radi Allahu anhu is weak. One reason for this is that Ash'ath ibn Sawwar himself is a weak narrator. The eminent hadith scholars do not consider his narration to be authoritative. The second reason is that Ash'ath, in opposition to the trustworthy narrators (thiqaat), has reported this narration as mawquf, whereas other trustworthy narrators report it as marfu‘. Therefore, due to his opposition to the trustworthy narrators, this narration is considered munkar (weak). And Allah knows best. This issue pertains only to the chain of transmission; however, despite the weakness of this chain, the ruling remains exactly as it is stated in other authentic ahadith: that the hand of a betrayer, a highway robber, and one who snatches something by force will not be cut off.

Explanation:
1:
Theft (sariqah) is defined as stealing property from a secure place where the wealth has been well hidden and kept. Breach of trust (khiyanah), snatching, and banditry—all of these are excluded from the definition of theft (sariqah). Therefore, the punishment of cutting off the hand does not apply to them. A "khain" (betrayer) is one who secretly takes property while outwardly expressing goodwill and sympathy towards the owner. For the crimes mentioned in the hadith, the ruler will enforce whatever punishment he deems appropriate.

The summary of Imam al-Nasa’i rahimahullah’s statement is that this narration is disconnected (munqati‘) in its chain. He has negated that Ibn Jurayj heard this narration from Abu al-Zubayr. Imam al-Nasa’i says that the aforementioned six reliable scholars have indeed narrated this report from Ibn Jurayj, but none of them have explicitly stated that Ibn Jurayj heard it from Abu al-Zubayr. Therefore, this narration is disconnected, i.e., weak. This is the position of Imam al-Nasa’i rahimahullah. However, the lack of explicit mention of hearing (sama‘) from Abu al-Zubayr by these six scholars does not negate the affirmation of explicit hearing by those hadith scholars who have stated that Ibn Jurayj did hear this narration from Abu al-Zubayr. Moreover, the one who affirms (ithbat) is given precedence over the one who negates (nafi), because the person who remembers something is a proof against the one who does not remember it. This is an established principle. The scholar of the era, Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Albani rahimahullah, has established with an authentic chain the explicit statement of hearing (sama‘) of Ibn Jurayj from Abu al-Zubayr, as has already been mentioned. For details, see: (Dhakheerat al-‘Uqba Sharh Sunan al-Nasa’i by al-‘Atyubi: 37/99–101, and al-Musannaf by ‘Abd al-Razzaq: 10/206). The wording in al-Musannaf of ‘Abd al-Razzaq regarding the hearing is absolutely clear and unequivocal, which is: “From Ibn Jurayj, he said: Abu al-Zubayr said to me,” meaning Ibn Jurayj said that Abu al-Zubayr said to him, and then he narrated the aforementioned report. Therefore, when there is an explicit and authentic statement of narration and hearing, then certainly this is what will be given preference.