It is generally regarded that the “mulk jabriya” period is what began in 1924; that we have had kings since Muawiyya until the end of the Uthmaniyyah empire.
During the reign of kings we had both good and bad, Islamic and non-Islamic laws and policies.
What makes the Mulk Jabriya particularly different from the preceding period is that the rulers today do not have real sovereignty.
Under the previous kings, of course, there was abuse of power, extreme oppression and wrongful appropriation of public assets for the enrichment of the ruling class. The greatest scholars of our Ummah were tortured, imprisoned and often killed under the “Islamic” kings. So, no, there is not a huge difference in terms of how Islamic the systems are. The difference is that prior to 1924, the Muslim rulers did enjoy a significant degree of independent sovereignty.
If one decides that the subordinate nature of the rulers today makes them Kuffar, I think that is a dangerous opinion, but it is also strategically irrelevant. If you acknowledge that the rulers today are subordinate, as is proven anyway by both the hadith and by the practical reality we see, then it does not make tactical sense to confront them instead of confronting their masters.
Similarly, it does not make sense to confront the external powers by establishing a new state and a new totalitarian regime which will inevitably fall under the same category of “mulk jabriya” as the regimes we already have..
Rather, what is needed is popular struggle against the external forces of control, to try to create conditions conducive to achieving real independence and sovereignty.
#الملك_الجبري
#Mulk_Jabryy