Discussion on the ruling by other than what Allah has revealed: Does it involve practical disbelief and creedal disbelief, or is it all creedal disbelief?

The Shaykh : Now, regarding the term "taghut," do you envision that practical disbelief and creedal disbelief can apply to the term "taghut," or is it all creedal disbelief?
The student : Tughut.

The Shaykh : Yes, because you called ruling by other than what Allah has revealed—this person who legislated a law that contradicts the Shari'ah of Allah—a taghut, correct?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, so now let us do what we did before, following the method of gradual progression: A man who rules a government by other than what Allah has revealed, is he a taghut?
The student : Yes, a taghut.

The Shaykh : Absolutely.
The student : Absolutely.

The Shaykh : Meaning, without saying whether he holds a belief or not.
The student : Like the one who tramples on the mushaf; it does not necessitate [disbelief].

The Shaykh : Like that, without detail?
The student : Yes, like the one who tramples on the mushaf, because...

The Shaykh : My brother, tell me yes, tell me no, may Allah guide you.
The student : Yes, without detail.

The Shaykh : Without detail.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, a man who adjudicates between two Muslims, and he knows that the right is with this one and that one is an aggressor against him, so he gave the right to the aggressor. Is this ruling by other than what Allah has revealed?
The student : This is ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, but his action is a sin.

The Shaykh: Yes.
The student : His action is a sin, ruling by other than what Allah has revealed.

The Shaykh : You are contradicting your previous statement.
The student : ... .

The Shaykh : My brother, tell me what is the difference between your previous statement and your later statement.
The student : In the name of Allah, and praise be to Allah, the difference is between the ruler who invalidated the ruling of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) and then brought a man-made ruling.

The Shaykh : This is understood, my brother, may Allah guide you. Tell me, this is what I gave you as an example. Why did I say he is not a taghut, even though he ruled by other than what Allah has revealed?
The student : Because, first, he did not invalidate the ruling of Allah entirely, like the first case.

The Shaykh : He invalidated it practically.
The student : Only in a specific issue.

The Shaykh : Okay, if the ruling is repeated.
The student : He did not make it a binding law.

The Shaykh : How?
The student : He did not make it a binding law in...

The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah guide you. I asked you: if the ruling is repeated and you did not answer and said he did not make it a law. I did not use the word "law" or the phrase "made it" or "did not make it" at first. If this ruling was repeated by him, or something similar was repeated by him, is he a taghut?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : So why did you say, because this is a ruling this time?
The student : The one who did it is an open sinner and a wrongdoer, and not a taghut.

The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah bless you, let me understand something that I understand, and we share in the understanding. We are now trying to reveal points, whether there are points of disagreement or points of agreement, as we hope. This one who ruled in favor of the aggressor ruled by other than what Allah has revealed, so we agreed now that this is not a taghut. What was your reasoning? So that we can build on your reasoning again. Why did we not rule that he is a taghut, even though he ruled by other than what Allah has revealed?
The student : Because he did not make this ruling binding on the people.

The Shaykh : How?
The student : He did not make it a general binding ruling and invalidated...

The Shaykh : Okay, what do you think? Is it not more precise than your expression to agree on the following expression: Because he believes in the depths of his heart that the ruling of Allah is the truth and that his ruling is the error? Is this not more correct than your answer just now?
The student : This is not sufficient, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : How?
The student : It is not sufficient.

The Shaykh : What is it?
The student : It is not sufficient?

The Shaykh : It is not sufficient?
The student : Yes, because some scholars said he is a disbeliever, as Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim issued a fatwa regarding his Shaykh...

The Shaykh : My brother, we did not discuss this before. Leave it. Saying so-and-so said this is enough for us. We are trying to understand each other now, so we do not lengthen the explanation. Now, any judge who rules by other than what Allah has revealed, does not the previous detail we mentioned—practical disbelief and creedal disbelief—apply to this one who ruled by other than what Allah has revealed in... one case? Is it possible that he ruled while knowing that it is contrary to the divine ruling, and that the divine ruling, as some people say today, is not suitable for this time, and the ruling is this one by which he ruled? This is creedal disbelief. But I showed you the other picture: between him and Allah, he believes that he is wrong and that the ruling of Allah is the correct one. So, is there a difference between these two men? Is this difference sufficient in your belief?
The student : There are attributes added to the belief.

The Shaykh : I did not understand.
The student : I mean, for example.

The Shaykh : I am asking, is this difference sufficient?
The student : It is not sufficient.

The Shaykh : Hmm, you add the other difference.