Accordingly, this impossible case has to be taken out of the hadith by means of an interpretation that embraces both categories.

Sixth: Some hadiths that threaten punishment provide an explicit text about the very point under dispute—such as the report that speaks of “the curse upon the muhallal lahu” (the original husband for whose sake the tahlil marriage is arranged). A number of scholars maintain that this person incurs no sin whatsoever, for he played no essential part in the first marriage contract; hence one cannot say that he is cursed because he supposedly believed that fulfilling the tahlil arrangement was obligatory.

Consequently, whoever holds that the first marriage remains valid even though the condition is void, and that therefore the woman becomes lawful for the second husband, has exonerated that second husband from any sin.

The same reasoning applies to the muhallil (the temporary husband who performs the tahlil): he is either cursed for the very act of tahlil, or for believing that the condition attached to the contract must be honoured, or for a combination of the two.

If the first or third explanation is correct, the required conclusion is attained. If, however, it is the second, then the belief itself would be what brings down the curse, whether or not a tahlil marriage actually occurs. In that case, what is mentioned in the hadith would not in fact be the cause of the curse, and the real cause—left unmentioned—would lie elsewhere; this is untenable.

Moreover, should a person believe that fulfilling the condition is obligatory while being unaware of the ruling, no curse falls upon him. But if he knows that it is not obligatory, it is impossible for him still to hold it obligatory unless he is deliberately opposing the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and that would render him a disbeliever.