As for the narration of Ibn Ḥāṭib, al-Dhahabī said in al-Talkhīṣ (4/382): “It is munkar (denounced).”

Points that may be taken from the report:

1 – The masters of ḥadīth have classified it as weak. Al-Nasāʾī rejected it, saying, “I know of no authentic narration in this chapter,” and Abū ʿAbd Allāh said, “The report that prescribes execution has no basis.” Even supposing the ḥadīth were acceptable, Imām al-Shāfiʿī maintained that it is abrogated. Al-Najm al-Wahhāj adds that the abrogating text is the ḥadīth, “The blood of a Muslim is not lawful except in three cases….”

2 – Al-Khaṭṭābī wrote in Maʿālim al-Sunan: “There is discussion about part of its chain, and it is opposed by the ḥadīth, ‘The blood of a Muslim is not lawful except in three cases….’ I do not know of any jurist who has deemed the blood of a thief lawful, even if the theft is repeated time after time. Nonetheless, a ruling could be extracted according to some juristic views: if the thief is counted among those who spread corruption on earth, the ruler may exercise ijtihād in disciplining such corrupters and impose whatever punishment he judges appropriate—even if it exceeds the fixed ḥadd. If he deems execution warranted, he may carry it out, and this opinion is ascribed to Mālik. The present ḥadīth supports that view.

It is also conceivable that the man concerned was notorious for corruption and manifest evil, certain to relapse into his misconduct and unable to desist until put to death.

Another possibility is that—if the report is authentic—the Prophet acted upon revelation from Allah, who disclosed what would occur later; hence the ruling in the narration is specific to that individual. Allah knows best.” End quote.

Those are the words of al-Khaṭṭābī, may Allah have mercy on him.