The implication of commanding something after prohibiting it.

The Shaykh : This is because commanding something after prohibiting it does not imply its obligation; rather, commanding something after prohibiting it only signifies its permissibility, not its obligation. Examples of this in the Qur'an are well known and mentioned in the science of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) across the different schools of jurisprudence. For example, Allah the Exalted said: So the command here to hunt is the lifting of the previous prohibition for the one in the state of ihram who does not hunt. Likewise, Allah the Exalted said: So this command to disperse after the completion of the prayer does not mean it is obligatory, but rather it means it is permissible, because it is preceded by His saying, the Exalted: So the command that signifies leaving off the action was lifted in His saying, the Exalted: If we keep this principle of usul al-fiqh in mind and return to the hadith, assuming its authenticity in that wording: is a prohibition, is an exception to the prohibition that signifies permissibility and does not signify obligation. As for the sentence following that, which is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): it is an explanatory sentence for this ruling. If the ruling is obligatory, it is an explanation for this obligatory ruling; if the ruling is recommended, it is an explanation for this recommended ruling; and if the ruling is permissibility, it is also an explanation for this permissible ruling. If this is understood, it becomes very clear that the hadith does not indicate the obligation of recitation for the one following behind the imam in the loud prayers.