What is the ruling on one who denies a ruling from the rulings of the Shari'ah?

The questioner : Praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).
We have reached the conclusion, Shaykh, that if a ruler rules more than once contrary to what Allah has revealed, not believing in that ruling, but rather for desire or passion; then this is considered disbelief less than disbelief. And regarding the statement of Ibn 'Abbas and its lack of specification to one or two times... did you mention anything about that?

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : You mentioned that if a ruler denies with his tongue, this disbelief can be attributed to him, and you mentioned something about the issue of ignorance. What we want to ask about now is to determine, in the end, if we hear someone denying something in the ruling regarding the Islamic Shari'ah; do we make sure he is not ignorant before we rule on him, or do we say that this person is a disbeliever, or that our ruling of disbelief on him does not imply that he is a disbeliever in the sight of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He)? Is there a difference between the two?

The Shaykh : You say that he uttered a denial of something known from the Shari'ah, so merely denying it means we rule on him as a disbeliever; because we are religiously obligated to judge by the apparent, and Allah takes care of the hidden. As for the assumption that he may be excused by Allah due to his ignorance, that is certainly a possibility. But did his ignorance or knowledge become apparent to us? Or at least, did it predominate in our opinion that he denied what he knows of Islam? Or did it predominate in our opinion that he denied or rejected what he does not know? We only judge by what predominates in our opinion, and then his case is left to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He).
And I said during my speech on this issue previously that there are two matters: the matter of faith and the matter of Islam. Faith pertains to the heart, and Islam pertains to the limbs and what is apparent from a person. So the matter of faith is left to Allah; He knows the hidden, He knows the secret and what is more hidden. Islam is what we are obligated to uphold. So as long as the picture presented now is that a ruler denied something of Islam, we say: "We judge you by your mouth," and we hold him accountable for his denial. If he is ignorant, he has an excuse with Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and we were ignorant of his ignorance and did not know it. And if we know his ignorance and that his denial and rejection was due to the excuse of ignorance, we teach him and establish the proof against him if we have the means to do so. Otherwise, this delay is left to Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So we deal with what is apparent to us, and his inner state is left to Allah. As for what is hidden from us, we are not obligated to deal with it.
And what confirms this for us, indeed strengthens it, is that we know that in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), besides other times, there was a group of people who displayed Islam outwardly and concealed disbelief inwardly, and they are known in the Shari'ah as the hypocrites. Their Lord, the Lord of the Worlds, described them as being in the lowest depth of the Fire. The Messenger (peace be upon him) knew some of these hypocrites and gave their names to the keeper of his secret, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman (may Allah be pleased with him). Yet he did not treat them as those who openly deny and declare disbelief, but rather he applied the apparent ruling of Islam to them. As long as they testified that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and established the prayer with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and fasted, and so on with the other rulings; as long as they were subject to these Shari'ah rulings, the Messenger (peace be upon him) considered them Muslims and treated them as Muslims, and did not uproot them. Because sometimes slips of the tongue may appear from them that indicate their inner disbelief, as our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) indicated in His saying: . So this strengthens our position that as long as a man, whatever man he is, displays what indicates his Islam, if something is associated with that which may indicate his denial and disbelief, but it is not explicit, we do not cling to what appears from him or may appear from him that would make him a disbeliever, as long as it is not explicit. On the contrary, we prioritize what is apparent from him, which is the acknowledgment of the two testimonies and their implications, and indeed his maintenance of some of the Islamic rituals such as prayer and fasting and the like.
So the ruling is based on what is clearly apparent from a person, and we judge him by it. If it was with knowledge—that is, he denied with knowledge—we apply the ruling of disbelief to him. And if it was due to ignorance, we establish the proof against him. If he repents, that is fine. Otherwise, we remain with our ruling of disbelief on him.
And there is a famous example among scholars: the one who abandons prayer, for example. The status of prayer is one of the rituals of Islam, and it is assumed that a Muslim cannot be ignorant of the obligation of the five prayers. So if the one who abandons prayer is brought to the Muslim ruler, he is ordered to pray, to maintain it, and he is asked to repent from abandoning it. If he repents and turns back, that is what is required. And if he persists in abandoning prayer, then at that time he is killed.
And the scholars differed on whether in this case he is killed as a hudud punishment or for disbelief?
There are two well-known opinions, and the correct one is that he is killed for disbelief. This is because there is a very strong phenomenon in this person who was given the choice between praying, repenting to Allah and praying, or else death is before him. If he prefers death over prayer, that is the greatest proof that his abandoning of prayer was due to belief and not due to negligence or laziness. Because if it were due to negligence or laziness, he would return to prayer and prefer prayer, even if out of laziness, over death which has become closer to him than the straps of his sandals. So when we see such a person prefer being killed over praying, it is proof that he is a denier of prayer. Therefore, the stronger of the scholars' opinions regarding this person is that he is killed for disbelief and not as a hudud punishment. And so the scholars proceed by considering what is apparent from a person. If stubbornness and persistence in disbelief appear from him, he is a disbeliever. Otherwise, he is treated as a Muslim, even if there may be things that indicate the opposite of what is apparent from his Islam, as we mentioned regarding the matter of the hypocrites...