Its summary is that “There is no contagion” is upon its apparent meaning, and that the command to flee from the leper is carried upon recommendation...

What is the ruling on instituting secular laws? And is it permissible to act by them? And does a ruler become a disbeliever by instituting these laws?

This person asks about the Sharīʿah ruling concerning the ruler who rules by the French secular laws alongside the knowledge that he claims Islām, prays, fasts and makes hajj.

Is there a difference between a specific issue in which the qāḍī (judge) passes judgement with other than what Allāh revealed and between issues that are considered general legislation.

The one who banishes the Shari’ah entirely and puts another law in its place, that this indicates that he views the [secular] law to be better than the Sharīʿah...

It is clear that there is no difference between ruling in a matter, or ten or a hundred or a thousand, or less or greater than that.

Taḥkīm [making a law a reference point] is unlawful when it is based upon a false (bāṭil) Sharīʿah which opposes the Book and the Sunnah.

A statement of Ibj Jibrīn overlooked and not given any attention by the Takfīriyyah, Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah whose methodology is blanket takfīr of rulers, governments and inciting youth to revolt.

Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn clarifies his position on the issue of the rulers instituting secular laws, replacing the Sharīʿah with them and when takfīr can be made of them.

Those who follow the secular laws which Shayṭān has legislated upon the tongues of his allies, in opposition to what Allāh, the Majestic and Elevated...