Or did the perpetrator of disbelief not commit disbelief due to the existence of doubt or a corrupt interpretation, and thus refrained from declaring the perpetrator of disbelief as an unbeliever? All of these do not fall under this rule, because they did not deny the religious text, nor did they reject it, but rather they were ignorant of it or interpreted it. This ignorance or interpretation removed them from applying this rule to them, all of this if they disavowed the act of disbelief committed by the perpetrator of disbelief, and hated it and denied it. It does not mean that because they did not declare the perpetrator of disbelief as an unbeliever, they approved of his act of disbelief, or that they did not disavow his act, or did not deny it, or did not hate it. Rather, they did not declare him an unbeliever due to their ignorance of the religious ruling, while disavowing his act, and hating and denying it. This is the meaning of disbelief in Taghut. As for the religious ruling of declaring him an unbeliever, it is not part of the origin of disbelief in Taghut, even if it is obligatory according to the religious text. Therefore, whoever denies disbelief entirely, and denies that it is part of religion, he becomes an unbeliever. Likewise, whoever denies the disbelief of a specific person for whom the text states disbelief, such as Iblis, Abu Lahab, and Pharaoh, he becomes an unbeliever because he rejected the religious text. As for one who refrains from declaring a specific person an unbeliever for whom there is no explicit text stating his specific disbelief, he has not rejected the religious text, and therefore does not become an unbeliever unless his refraining from declaring him an unbeliever includes denying the religious texts. Likewise, this religious rule does not apply to him except with the controls that we will mention now, because the ruling of disbelief is not part of the origin of religion, nor is it part of the origin of disbelief in Taghut, nor is it known by innate disposition, but rather it is known by report and religious text.