What are the legal rulings entailed by declaring a ruler a disbeliever?

The Shaykh : But I want to know now what follows. I want to discuss a practical point with you now. What follows from this heat I see in you now and in many young Muslims who have not aged in knowledge—and do not hold me to this—what follows in terms of legal rulings if we say the ruler Zayd, and I agree with you and you agree with me that his disbelief is not practical disbelief but doctrinal disbelief, okay.
The student : Meaning he is outside the religion.

The Shaykh : How?
The student : Outside the religion.
Another student: Yes, we agreed that doctrinally he is outside the religion, yes.
The student : Outside the religion, good.

The Shaykh : What follows? Here I and you and the group and others agreed that this ruler Zayd, his disbelief is doctrinal disbelief, he is eternally in the Fire, what follows from that?
The student : We are now in the midst of a legal issue we are investigating with evidence, we do not say what follows.
Another student: Answer the Shaykh now, the Shaykh is posing a question.
The student : So that we investigate it as a legal issue. I did not concede to the Shaykh that the ruler who changes [the law] does not exit the religion.
Another student: The Shaykh is emphasizing this, saying a specific ruler whom we ruled that his disbelief is doctrinal disbelief, outside the religion, this is an example of a specific ruler, what follows from our knowledge of this ruler that his disbelief is doctrinal and outside the religion, so that we investigate these issues, and you said you would discuss all these issues, so now Zayd among the rulers is a disbeliever by doctrine and he is outside the religion, what follows from our knowledge of this ruler and what legal rulings?
The student : He has now become a taghut.
Another student: A taghut and a text as well.

The Shaykh : What follows? May Allah guide you, my brother, take it as a benefit from the experienced Shaykh, take it as a benefit. Every question directed to a person and the person answers with an answer that forces the questioner to develop the question in another way, that answer is deficient. Do you understand this? I will not repeat it.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : How? Yes? Do I repeat it or do you understand? You are speaking the language of politicians, yes, a stretchable word that covers this and that. I say any question answered with an answer that forces the questioner, based on that answer, to develop the question in another way, the answer to the question is wrong or it is incomplete, not comprehensive, not preventing. The evidence now, you say he will be a taghut, the question will be repeated, so if we know that Zayd among the people is a taghut, what follows in terms of practical legal rulings?
The student : First, disavowal of him and of his work that made him a taghut, and not referring to him for judgment.

The Shaykh: But?
The student: This.

The Shaykh : But I am not answering.
The student : I think this is according to my knowledge, meaning.

The Shaykh : Good, do you not know the well-known hadith, his saying (peace be upon him) in the authentic collections: "Shall we not fight them?" He said: . And in the other narration: . Do you know this hadith? So it is not only what concerns our persons, we disavow and we do not show loyalty, and so on, because this loyalty is also like practical disbelief and doctrinal disbelief, meaning if one shows loyalty to a disbeliever, does he exit the religion? A question that also poses itself, as they say.
The student : ... I mentioned in the introduction of the speech, according to the detail, not every loyalty.

The Shaykh : Now this loyalty is an individual obligation, every one of us must disavow this taghut according to your expression, but what is the obligation of the community? Exiting [against him].
The student : .

The Shaykh : No, exiting.
The student : The community as a whole exits against this ruler.
Another student: .
The student : With that, I say the obligation, the obligation is exiting, but if there is no ability, then here your answer is that .
Another student: O Shaykh, you changed the topic. We did not discuss the issue of the ruler who changes [the law] and made his ruling binding generally for the people. We did not exhaust the research, and you moved to an issue I did not speak about at all.

The Shaykh : I spoke about it, but you want to speak. I want to speak too, or do we not have the right to speak?
The student : You spoke, O Shaykh... let me speak, O Shaykh, give me a chance.

The Shaykh : I spoke and you spoke. May Allah guide you, it is not only I who spoke, we both spoke.
The student : But... O point, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : What point?
The student : The ruler who changes [the law].

The Shaykh : Good, and we did not branch out from it, we did not speak.
The student : ... We speak about the ruler who changes [the law].
Another student: The detail of the Shaykh, we said regarding your presentation of this first item.
The student : Good, O Shaykh, we... the people of the Sunnah and the community, especially the Salafis, meaning truly, Imam Ahmad used to discuss al-Shafi'i, who was his Shaykh, in the issue of the one who leaves prayer, is he a disbeliever or not...

The Shaykh : ... .
The student : Shaykh, do not be angry with me.

The Shaykh : O Shaykh, I am angry with you, O Shaykh, I am rebuking you for discussing me.
The student : Give me room, O Shaykh, give me room to speak about this issue.

The Shaykh : My brother, we told you to speak instead of five minutes, a quarter of an hour.
The student : You did not let me finish.

The Shaykh : This is injustice, O Shaykh, fear Allah. I did not stop you. When you were speaking, I was raising [my hand] to ask permission, it is called interrupting you, and we agreed on this style.
The student : We moved to a second topic.