These are the opinions on the implication of the imperative: The proponents of "recommendation" (al-nadb) based their argument on the premise that if a master says to his slave, "Do it," his statement necessitates the action and nothing else. The obligation is not understood from the mere wording unless it is accompanied by a قرينة (qarinah - indication or evidence) that signifies obligation. Therefore, there is no path to obligation, nor is there a path to suspension (al-waqf), because the imperative necessitates action. Action necessitates the action, and suspension necessitates abandonment. There is no path to abandonment because the imperative necessitates action, leaving only recommendation.

The proponents of "suspension" (al-waqf) argued that the imperative has no fixed meaning, as it can imply obligation, recommendation, or permissibility (al-ibahah). There is no way to assign it to one of these without evidence, as it is capable of all of them. It is not more appropriate to assign it to obligation than to recommendation, nor is it more appropriate to assign it to recommendation than to permissibility, except with evidence. If there is no evidence, and what is potential cannot be used as proof, then there is only suspension until evidence for obligation, recommendation, or permissibility arrives.

The proponents of "permissibility" (al-ibahah) argued that all things, before the advent of divine law, are permissible. Therefore, they should be treated according to the original state before the advent of divine law until evidence for obligation or recommendation arrives. The imperatives, in their view, are based on permissibility; whoever wishes may do it, and whoever wishes may leave it, or suspension.

The scholars of usul (principles of jurisprudence) differed greatly regarding the implication of the imperative. The majority held that it implies obligation unless there is a قرينة (qarinah) that diverts it from obligation. (See, for example: Al-Juwayni's Al-Warraqat, p. 74; Abu al-Walid al-Baji's Al-Isharat, p. 183 and following). Some held that the imperative implies recommendation. Among these are most of the Mu'tazila, except for Al-Basri and Al-Habbai in one of their opinions, as they held it to imply obligation. Among them also is Al-Shafi'i in one of his opinions, and a group of jurists. Others held it to imply permissibility. Many scholars of usul held to suspension regarding the implication of the imperative. They said it indicates multiple meanings by way of shared signification (ishtirak) and that one should suspend judgment in determining any one of them until evidence arrives that favors one of those meanings. The opinions of the "suspenders" (al-waqifiyyah) varied from suspending judgment in determining any implication of the imperative to suspending judgment in determining an implication that is uncertain between obligation and recommendation. To suspending judgment in determining an implication that is uncertain between obligation, recommendation, and permissibility. To suspending judgment in determining an implication that is uncertain between obligation, recommendation, permissibility, and threat. Among the prominent "suspenders" are Al-Shafi'i in one of his opinions, Al-Baqillani, Al-Ghazali, Al-Ash'ari, and Al-Maturidi. For details of these opinions and their arguments, see: Al-Bazdawi and Al-Bukhari's Usul and its explanation Kashf al-Asrar, p. 106 and following; Al-Ghazali's Al-Mustasfa, p. 88 and following; Ibn Hazm's Al-Ahkam, p. 411 and following; Al-Shawkani's Irshad al-Fuhul, p. 346 and following. See also Ibn Tumart's A'azz ma Yutlab, pp. 42-43.