Is there any disagreement—even a slight one—regarding the excommunication of one who utters a word of disbelief in jest, and what is the ruling concerning my grandmother’s saying in jest, and what is my ruling for not correcting her?

The disagreement regarding the ruling on one who utters a word of disbelief in jest is a weak disagreement, for the scholars have unanimously agreed on the disbelief of one who reviles or ridicules anything from the religion of Allah, whether in jest, play, or otherwise. The evidence for the disbelief of one who jests with a word of disbelief is their trivialization of religion, as they intentionally uttered it by choice, and jest is not an excuse. The coerced, the mistaken, and the forgetful are excused, unlike one who jests.

As for the phrase "wine is permissible when we want to cook delicious fish," its outward meaning is that it is a word of disbelief, due to its rejection or denial of a Sharia ruling, and trivializing the mention of Sharia terms out of context is a form of ridicule.

As for the one who hears a word of disbelief, it is obligatory upon them to offer advice, enjoin good, and forbid evil. Their silence does not make them a disbeliever unless they are pleased with it and endorse it.

Finally, one who delays teaching the two Shahadas (declarations of faith) to a disbeliever disbelieves if the delay is without an excuse, and this is based on the premise that their delay necessitates contentment with disbelief.