Is there a difference between changing the ruling in general and ruling in a single case?

Question:
Is there a difference between changing the ruling in general and ruling in a single case?

Answer:
If he did not intend by that to deem it lawful, but rather ruled by it for other reasons, it is disbelief less than major disbelief. However, if he says: "It is permissible, there is no harm in ruling by other than what Allah has revealed," and even if he says the Shari'ah is better, but if he says: "There is no harm, it is permissible," he commits major disbelief by that, whether he says the Shari'ah is better or equal, or considers it better than the Shari'ah; all of it is disbelief. We ask Allah for safety. That is, in all cases. But it is obligatory to prevent that, and it is disbelief less than major disbelief. It must be prevented, even if he says: "I did not deem it lawful," or even if he says: "There is enmity or a bribe between me and so-and-so." It is not permissible for anyone to rule by other than what Allah has revealed, absolutely, even if there is enmity between him and the one being judged, or for other reasons. It is obligatory for the one in authority to prevent that and to rule by the law of Allah.