by all revealed laws, along with other commands to perform great duties and prohibitions against associating partners with Allah, taking a life, unlawful sexual intercourse, and similar acts forbidden by all revealed laws and entailing grave corruption, like the command to lick one’s fingers and remove any dirt from a fallen morsel, or the prohibition against eating dates two at a time. Even if both commands are obligatory, the command to believe in Allah and His Messenger is not like the command to dress properly for every prayer, or the command to provide for a pregnant woman and pay her wages if she breastfeeds.

For this reason, the majority of jurists hold that obligations and prohibitions vary in degree. They say:

“Making one of two acts obligatory may be more emphatic than making the other obligatory, and prohibiting one may be more stringent than prohibiting the other. Thus, this act is more strongly obligatory, and that act more strictly prohibited.”

However, a group of speculative theologians, including Ibn ʿAqīl and others, disputed this, saying: “The difference in degree does not lie in obligation and prohibition themselves, but in what is associated with them: the magnitude of reward and punishment.”

The majority say:

“Rather, the difference in degree exists in both respects. Differences in effects indicate differences in their causes. That the reward and punishment associated with one of two acts are greater shows that the command or prohibition concerning it is more emphatic. No rational person doubts that one of two commands or prohibitions may receive particular emphasis that the other does not. Were they equal in every respect, neither could be singled out for emphasis or any other factor giving it precedence, for equality and superiority are mutually opposed.”

The majority of leading jurists hold that obligation and prohibition vary in degree, and the unqualified affirmation of