We were with Busr bin Abu Artah at sea when a thief named Misdar was brought before him, having stolen a Bactrian camel. Busr said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, 'Hands are not to be cut off during a military expedition.' Were it not for that, I would have cut off his hand."
كنا مع بسر بن أبي أرطاة في البحر، فأتي بسارق يقال له مصدر، قد سرق بختية. فقال: قد سمعت رسول الله ﷺ يقول: لا تقطع الأيدي في السفر ولولا ذلك لقطعته.
Abu Dawud (4408), Nasai (4979), and Bayhaqi (9/104) all narrated it through Haywa bin Shurayh, from Ayyash bin Abbas Qutbani, from Shuaym bin Baytan and Yazid bin Subh Asbahi, from Junada bin Abu Umaya, who narrated it.What is meant by "travel" here is military expedition, as stated in the narrations of Tirmidhi (1450), Ahmad (17626), and Mujam Ibn Qani (1/84), all of them through Abdullah bin Lahia, who said, Ayyash bin Abbas narrated to us with his chain, from Junada bin Abu Umaya, that he said, while on the pulpit at Rhodes, when he flogged the two men who had stolen from the people's spoils of war, he said, "Nothing prevented me from cutting off their hands except that Busr bin Artat found a man who had stolen during a military expedition, called Musdir. He flogged him without cutting off his hand, and said, 'The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade us from amputation during military expeditions.'"The wording given is Ahmad's, while Tirmidhi's wording is abridged. Tirmidhi said, "This is an unusual hadith. Others besides Ibn Lahia have narrated it with this same chain in a similar manner. He is also called Busr bin Abu Artat." And he said, "The practice among some scholars, including Uzai, is that they do not hold that the prescribed punishment should be carried out during a military expedition in the presence of the enemy, for fear that the one being punished might join the enemy. So when the commander leaves enemy territory and returns to the land of Islam, he carries out the punishment on whoever committed the offense. That is what Uzai said."I say, perhaps Tirmidhi did not judge the hadith as sahih or hasan because of the disagreement over Busr bin Abu Artat's standing as a companion. Ibn Saad reported from Waqidi that he said, "He was born two years before the death of the Prophet ﷺ, and the Prophet ﷺ passed away while he was still a boy." He denied that Busr had any narration or direct hearing from the Prophet ﷺ. This is what is stated in Tahzib Kamal. Yahya bin Main said, "The people of Madinah deny that Busr bin Abu Artat heard from the Prophet ﷺ, while the people of Sham narrate from him, from the Prophet ﷺ."However, the majority of scholars, including Bukhari, Baghawi, Ibn Qani, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Manda, and others, held the view that he was indeed a companion. Ibn Hajar said in Taqrib, "He was among the younger companions." On this basis, the chain of this hadith is sahih.His saying "bukhtiyya" refers to the female of the Bukhti camels.Scholars differ regarding carrying out the prescribed punishment in enemy territory. Uzai's view, as already mentioned, is that it should not be carried out in enemy territory for the reason he stated, and also because the commander of the army has no authority to carry out punishments that involve mutilation, since that matter belongs to the ruler. Most jurists make no distinction between enemy territory and other lands, and they hold that the prescribed punishment should be carried out on whoever commits the offense, just as they hold that the obligatory duties and acts of worship are equally binding upon people in the land of Islam and the land of war.