Is the legislation of man-made laws and the establishment of a constitution to rule by, instead of God's law, a matter of dispute among scholars? Are both opinions among the views of Ahlus-Sunnah? Is it permissible for a follower [muqallid] to adopt either of the two opinions? And did Allamah Ibn Uthaymeen state at the end of his life that legislation is a sin, contrary to his earlier statement that it is major disbelief?

Legislation of man-made laws that contravene the ruling of Allah and His Messenger concerning blood, honor, and wealth is major apostasy that expels one from the fold of Islam, by consensus of Muslim scholars. This is because it is a contention with Allah in His judgment and an opposition to His law. This legislation includes making the forbidden permissible and the permissible forbidden, or granting legislators the right to do so, which is the utmost disbelief. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that whoever permits that which is Haram (definition) by consensus, or forbids that which is Halal (definition) by consensus, or alters the Sharia (definition) by consensus, is a disbeliever and apostate by agreement of the jurists. Ibn Kathir stated that whoever abandons the revealed Law sent down to Muhammad and resorts to other laws for judgment has disbelieved by the consensus of Muslims. العلامة Al-Shanqiti clarified that whoever follows man-made laws that contradict the Sharia of Allah, there is no doubt about their disbelief and polytheism except for one whose insight Allah has blinded, and that judging by any legal system that contradicts the legislation of the Creator is disbelief in Him. As for Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen, he stated in many places in his books that legislating laws that contradict what Allah has revealed is major disbelief, emphasizing that whoever enacts legislations contrary to the Sharia believing them to be more righteous and beneficial, this is considered disbelief that expels one from the fold of Islam.