Legitimacy or Illegitimacy of the Obligation to Observe Divine Decrees

There seems no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the obligation to observe some divine decrees. Determining  ‘fixed legal punishment’ (hadd) and ‘penalty’ (taʿzir) for certain forbidden actions such as committing adultery and drinking alcohol is nothing but the obligation to observe the divine decrees in these cases. The discussion is to be raised as to its limit and its generality. The absence of a specific text on the issue has led to the emergence of varying jurisprudential opinions as follows: 1. The legitimacy of the obligation to abandon a type of forbidden act (i.e., those forbidden acts that are liable to fixed legal punishments, but do not have fixed punishments _ not every forbidden act). 2. The legitimacy of the obligation to give up every sin (crime); whether it is an example of a forbidden act or that of refraining from performing an obligatory act. 3. Legitimacy of the obligation to give up every major sin and 4. Illegitimacy of this obligation except in the specified cases. What are the documents supporting these four statements? In addition to deducing and quoting the documents proving the four statements as well as the need for the their veracity, which is a jurisprudential issue, the present article has also touched the issue from a more general perspective and has come to the conclusion that the obligation to observe those divine decrees which are of  social aspects and that their non-observance is considered as an insult to the divine law (Shariʿah) and religious people leading to de-spiritualization, is legitimate and in some cases prove to be essential to be fulfilled.