And since the same consequence follows under both assumptions, the ḥadīth stands unchallenged and must therefore be put into practice.

To clarify: many leading scholars have stated outright that whoever carries out the disputed arrangement is under a curse. Among them is ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar—may Allah be pleased with them both—who was asked about a man who married a woman solely to make her lawful for her former husband while neither the woman nor that husband knew of the scheme. He answered, “This is fornication, not a marriage. Allah has cursed the muḥallil and the muḥallal lahu (the one who enacts the tahlīl and the one for whom it is done).” This is reliably reported from him through several chains, and similar statements come from others as well. Among those others is Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, who said, “If his intention is iḥlāl, he is a muḥallil and he is accursed.” Comparable verdicts are transmitted from numerous jurists regarding many disputed issues related to wine, usury, and the like.

If, however, one were to claim that the legal curse and the other threats found in the texts apply only to matters of unanimous agreement, then these scholars would have cursed people whom it is unlawful to curse and would themselves fall under the very warnings contained in other narrations—such as the Prophet’s ﷺ statement, “Cursing a Muslim is like killing him” (1), and his saying reported by Ibn Masʿūd—may Allah be pleased with him—“Reviling a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is unbelief,” agreed upon by al-Bukhārī and Muslim.

And Abū al-Dardāʾ—may Allah be pleased with him—narrated that he heard the Messenger of Allah