There is no way out of the matter except by a single route.(1)

Let the questioner then argue: “I grant that among the mujtahid scholars are some who believe that the point under dispute is included in the texts that threaten punishment, and on the basis of that belief they issue a warning about it and may—even—curse, for example, whoever commits the act. Yet they are mistaken in holding that view, a mistake for which they are nevertheless excused and rewarded. Accordingly, the one who curses without due right does not fall under the threat, because, in my judgment, that threat applies only to a curse that is unanimously forbidden; whoever utters a unanimously forbidden curse exposes himself to the threat attached to cursing.

Now, if the very act of cursing is itself a matter of legitimate disagreement, it too lies outside the ḥadiths of threat—just as the disputed act and the cursing of its doer are excluded from those ḥadiths.

Therefore, just as you removed the locus of disagreement from the first threat, so remove it from the second. I hold that the ḥadiths of threat, on both sides of the question, do not encompass the point under dispute—neither with respect to the permissibility of the act nor with respect to the permissibility of cursing its doer—regardless of whether one deems the act permissible or impermissible.

On either assumption, I do not permit cursing the doer, nor do I permit cursing the one who curses the doer, and I do not regard either the doer or the curser