What is the authenticity of the hadith: "There is no cutting (of the hand) for a betrayer, a plunderer, or an embezzler," and how is it understood that the hand of a thief is cut for a quarter of a dinar, while the hand of a betrayer, a plunderer, or an embezzler is not cut, and what is the punishment for these?

The discussion addresses the differences between theft (sariqa), embezzlement (ikhtilas), snatching (intihab), betrayal/treachery (khiyana), and usurpation/seizure (ghasb), explaining that the cutting penalty (qat') applies to theft but not to the others due to the condition of secrecy and the inability to guard against the thief. This is unlike the usurper who takes property openly and can be guarded against.

It also clarifies that the ruling of cutting in these cases is not a matter of consensus, and the reason for the disagreement stems from differing understandings of the hadiths. Furthermore, the cutting penalty for theft from public funds is also a matter of dispute due to the semblance of ownership (shubhat al-milk) which averts the hudud (prescribed penalties).

The text concludes by stating that the negation of the hadd penalty in some of these scenarios does not diminish their severity. Rather, the punishment shifts to ta'zir (discretionary punishment), which can sometimes be more severe than cutting off a hand. This aims to deter the offender, reform them, and prevent others from committing crimes.