The Third Issue:

It is erroneous to assume that substituting a ruling does not necessitate attributing the new ruling to the religion. This is further clarified from four perspectives: The First: Ibn Al-’Arabi stated—as endorsed by Ash-Shinqīṭi, who quoted it from Al-Qurṭubi: «إنْ حَكَمَ بما عنده على أنه من عند الله؛ فهو تبديل له؛ يوجب الكفر» “If one issues a judgment according to their own view, believing it to be from Allāh, then this is a substition which necessitates disbelief.” [Ahkām Al-Qur'ān (625/2); Aḍhwā' Al-Bayān (1/407)]. The Second: Ibn Taymiyyah stated: «الشرع المبدل: وهو الكذب على الله ورسوله، أو على الناس بشهادات الزور ونحوها، والظلم البين، فمن قال: 'إن هذا من شرع الله'؛ فقد كفر بلا نزاع» “Substituted law: is essentially lying about Allāh and His Messenger, or deceiving people with false testimonies or similar actions, and manifest injustice. Therefore, if someone says, ‘This is from the law of Allāh,’ they are considered a disbeliever without any disagreement.” [Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā (3/268)]. I say: He defined substitution as a ruling falsely claimed to be from Allāh, referring to it as a lie against Allāh and His Messenger and specified the perpetrator's claim that "this is part of Allāh's law." The Third: If mere alteration were equivalent to substitution, it would lead to a contradiction between two issues of consensus: A- The consensus regarding the disbelief of those who substitute rulings, which is an absolute consensus without any restrictions. Ibn Taymiyyah said: «والإنسان متى حلل الحرام المجمع عليه، أو حرم الحلال المجمع عليه، أو بدل الشرع المجمع عليه؛ كان كافراً مرتداً باتفاق الفقهاء» "Whenever someone permits what is universally agreed upon as forbidden, forbids what is universally agreed upon as permissible, or substitutes a universally agreed upon law, they are deemed to have disbelieved and apostated by the consensus of the jurists." [Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā (3/267)]. b- The consensus on NOT seeking those who are unjust in their rulings as disbelievers. Ibn ’Abdil Barr said: «وأجمع العلماء على أن الجور في الحكم؛ من الكبائر، لِمَن تعمد ذلك، عالماً به» “Scholars agree that deliberate injustice in judgment is a MAJOR SIN for those who do so knowingly.” [At-Tamhīd (16/358)] I say: It is imperative to distinguish that mere alteration is not deemed substitution. The general consensus regarding disbelief due to substitution differs with the consensus that injustice, which is mere alteration without attributing the new ruling to the religion, does not result in disbelief. Memorise this [distinction] as it is important! The Fourth: Related to the previous point: If mere alteration were substitution, it would imply that all sinners, such as those who shave their beards or wear their garments out of pride, should be considered disbelievers, since each of them is considered to have replaced Allāh's judgment with their own desires. Ibn Ḥazm said: “Allāh the Exalted said: ﴿وَمَن لَّمْ يحكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللهُ فَأُولَئكَ هُمُ ٱلۡكَـٰفِرُونَ﴾ ‘And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, those are the disbelievers.’ [Qur'ān 44]. He also said: ﴿وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللهُ فَأُولَئكَ هُمُ ٱلظَّـٰلِمُونَ﴾ ‘And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, those are the wrongdoers.’ [Qur'ān 45]. And He said: ﴿وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بمَا أَنزَلَ اللهُ فَأُولَئكَ هُمُ ٱلۡفَـٰسِقُونَ﴾ ‘And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, those are the corrupt.’ [Qur'ān 47]. فليُلزم المعتزلة أن يصرحوا بكفر كل عاص وظالم وفاسق؛ لأن كل عامل بالمعصية فلم يحكم بما أنزل الله» The Mu'tazilites must then be consistent and declare every sinner, wrongdoer, and corrupt person as a disbeliever since every sinner who does not judge by what Allāh has revealed falls into this category.” [Al-Faṣl (3/278)]