As for cursing those described by a particular characteristic, you are already aware of the disagreement concerning it. It has also been explained that such a curse does not necessarily fall upon every individual fitting that description unless the conditions are fulfilled and the impediments removed; and that is not always the case.”

He is also told:

“All the preceding evidence against restricting these hadiths to cases on which there is agreement applies here. It refutes this objection just as it refuted the original objection. This is not a case of making one proof a premise in another proof, such that someone might say: ‘Despite its length, this amounts to only one proof.’ The purpose here is to show that the unacceptable consequence they imagined follows on either assumption, and thus cannot be regarded as an unacceptable consequence. A single proof therefore establishes both that the texts are intended to encompass disputed cases and that there is nothing objectionable in this. Nor is there anything objectionable about the proof of one proposition serving as a premise in the proof of another, even if the two propositions necessarily entail one another.”

(Eleventh:

The scholars agree that it is obligatory to act upon hadiths containing threats of punishment insofar as they establish prohibition. Some scholars differed only over acting upon solitary reports among them specifically with regard to the threatened punishment. As for prohibition, there is no disagreement worthy of consideration. The scholars among the Companions, the Successors, and the jurists who came after them—may Allah be pleased with them all—have consistently cited these hadiths as evidence in their speech and writings, in disputed matters and otherwise. Indeed, when a hadith contains a threat of punishment, this indicates prohibition all the more emphatically, as is recognized by