For this reason, the jurists have differed over the following question: if a man says to his wife, “If you disobey my command, you are divorced,” and she then disobeys a prohibition of his, has he broken his oath? Scholars of our school and others hold three views:

The first: he has broken his oath, because this constitutes disobedience to his command in customary usage, and because a prohibition is a kind of command.

The second: he has not broken his oath, because, as they claim, a prohibition does not fall within the linguistic meaning of a command.

The third: a distinction is drawn between someone who understands the true nature of commands and prohibitions and someone who does not. The first view is correct.

Everyone who disobeys a prohibition has therefore disobeyed a command, because a command is a verbal request for an action, made from a position of authority. One who prohibits seeks an action through his prohibition, either directly or by necessary implication. If prohibition is a kind of command, then command is more comprehensive, and what is more comprehensive is superior. If prohibition is not a kind of command, then command is the nobler of the two categories.

This is why the scholars agree on placing commands before prohibitions, and this is the order found in the Quran and Sunnah. Allah Most High says:

“He enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong.”

And He says:

“Indeed, Allah commands justice, doing good, and giving to relatives, and forbids immorality, wrongdoing, and oppression.”