Chapter Two

Areas of Disagreement Regarding the Previous Discussion Disagreement concerning the nine cases I have outlined has occurred in four specific areas: 1. Definition of Substitution: The correct view is that substitution occurs only if one explicitly attributes these laws to the religion. 2. Assessment of Certain Cases of Alteration (Case Seven): There is a disagreement about whether alterating an entire legal system constitutes disbelief. The correct view is that there is no evidence to support the claim of disbelief in this case. 3. Assessment of Legislation (Case Eight): Some argue that enacting laws other than what Allāh has revealed is a form of major disbelief. The correct view is that there is no evidence to support this claim. 4. Assessment of General Legislation (Case Nine): There is disagreement on whether general legislation constitutes major disbelief. The correct view is that there is no evidence to support this claim.