what Allah has forbidden. Thus, someone who considers a person’s recitation while listening to his imam to be disobedience to Allah and His Messenger—whereby he neglects what Allah has commanded him and does what Allah has forbidden—may say:

“For something painful to be in his mouth, preventing him from disobedience, is better for him than doing what he has been forbidden to do.”

Similarly, someone who utters forbidden words may be told: “It would have been better for you to be unable to speak.” This does not mean that we ourselves should inflict such suffering on him. Rather, it means that, had Allah afflicted him with this, it would have been better for him than falling into sin.

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said to the spouses invoking Allah’s curse upon one another:

“The punishment of this world is less severe than the punishment of the Hereafter.”

A member of the early generations might mention the threatened punishment for an act even when someone else commits it on the basis of an interpretation, as in ‘Ā’ishah’s statement:

“Tell Zayd that he has nullified his jihad alongside the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, unless he repents.”

None of this involves invoking Allah’s curse or the Fire upon one another, nor inflicting Allah’s punishment. Rather, it expresses the wish that a person be afflicted with something that prevents him from disobedience, even if it causes him pain.

A scholar may mention the threatened punishment for what he considers a sin while knowing that someone acting on an interpretation is forgiven and will not incur that punishment. He mentions it, however, to explain that, in his view, this act warrants that punishment. How much more so, then, when he has mentioned only something that would prevent the person from doing what he considers a sin.