The Detail on Those Who Rule by Other Than What Allah Has Revealed

Question:
Is the ruler who claims to be a Muslim and rules by other than what Allah has revealed a disbeliever? And if he is declared a disbeliever for that, is the one who did not declare him a disbeliever also a disbeliever?

Answer:
This question was raised last Friday, as I believe, and the answer was given, stating that it requires detail. This is because rulers who rule by other than the Shari'ah may claim that they are compelled to do so, that their people or other states force them into it, and that they believe their action is invalid, that it is wrong, and that it is a sin, but that they were compelled to it and did it just as the tribal sheikhs used to do, ruling by the laws of their ancestors. So, those who ruled by man-made laws, if they considered them permissible.
Yes, it was raised last Friday. If they consider these laws permissible, and that they are better than the Shari'ah, or that they are equal to the Shari'ah, then they are disbelievers in all three cases. This is because the proponents of these laws sometimes consider them better than the Shari'ah, sometimes they believe them to be like the Shari'ah when they rule by them, or that the ruling of the Shari'ah is all one, and sometimes they believe that the Shari'ah is better and more appropriate, but that these laws are permissible and there is no harm in ruling by man-made laws. The one who holds this belief is a disbeliever, an apostate from Islam—we seek refuge in Allah—because whoever declares lawful what Allah has forbidden is a disbeliever, and whoever disparages the Shari'ah of Allah is a disbeliever, and whoever mocks the religion of Allah is a disbeliever: [al-Tawbah:65] [al-Tawbah:66] [Muhammad:9].
The point is: that declaring permissible what is known from the religion by necessity to be forbidden is disbelief in Allah and apostasy from Islam, just as declaring forbidden what is known from the religion by necessity to be lawful is disbelief in Allah and apostasy.
If someone were to say that sheep are forbidden, or cows are forbidden, or camels are forbidden, or milk is forbidden, he is an apostate from the religion of Allah, after it has been made clear to him that he is wrong and that he is unjust to himself. Or if he were to say that zina is lawful, or that khamr is lawful, he is an apostate from Islam. So, the one who says that shirk is lawful is greater in disbelief, more wicked, and more vile.
So the conclusion: The one who considers it permissible to rule by laws that contradict the Shari'ah of Allah in the affairs of people, or considers them like the Shari'ah, or considers them better than the Shari'ah, is a disbeliever according to all scholars. The one who is not declared a disbeliever is the one who may rule by other than what Allah has revealed, ruling by some laws, but believes that he is unjust, that he is mistaken and wrong in doing so, and that he is disobedient to his Lord, but he rules by them for purposes and reasons, and he knows that he is unjust. Ibn Abbas said regarding this: "This is not like shirk with Allah, and it is not like the greatest injustice." Mujahid, Tawus, and a group of scholars said regarding it: "It is injustice less than injustice, and disbelief less than disbelief."
So the conclusion: If he does not believe that it is permissible, but only does it knowing that he is disobedient, that he is unjust to himself, and that it is obligatory for him to rule by the Shari'ah, then he does not become a disbeliever with major disbelief, but rather with minor disbelief, minor injustice, and minor open sinfulness. We ask Allah for safety.