Rasulullah ﷺ told us that after him and the 30 years of rule upon the Minhaj Nubuwwa, that there would be flawed systems of government in which some things were recognizable to us, and other things unrecognizable (i.e., they would be a mixture of pure Shari’ah and non-Shari’ah); there would be essentially monarchs and then there would be Mulk Jabryy. And he ﷺ told us to hear and obey in general, and to oppose in particular those things that did not conform to Shari’ah. He did not tell us to topple them, and he did not tell us that their flaws and their inclusion of practices and policies that do not conform to Shari’ah constitutes blatant kufr. This is a clear indication that our opposition should be on a policy by policy basis, not on an “all-or-nothing” basis.
In nearly every Muslim country today, aspects of the Shari’ah are present. There is acknowledgement that the Shari’ah is supreme, even if it is not implemented in totality.
Thus, the proper role of Islamists is to focus on those specific practices and policies that contradict the Shari’ah and oppose them, and try to reform them. It is incorrect to claim that all of the governments in the Muslim world have become apostate. If such a catastrophe were to happen, surely our Prophet would have told us. He didn’t. He said that we would have kings, and we would then have “Mulk Jabryy”, and he did not characterize either of these forms of rule as being “kufr”, rather he said that if kufr becomes apparent during those phases, those rulers should be fought.
Is the situation today worse than it was before? Yes, of course. It is a different phase. We have moved since 1924 from the phase of kings to the phase of Mulk Jabryy. But this is not, in and of itself, apostasy…the Prophet ﷺ did not say that. And in fact, what we have is essentially what we had throughout most of our history, a mixture of Shari’ah and non-Shari’ah; and our obligation is the same; to oppose whatever specific things contradict the religion, as much as we can without making matters worse.
As for “blatant kufr”, there is almost no reason to discuss this, because if it occurs, it will be just that, blatant. There will be no ambiguity about it. You will not need to argue and research and formulate complex debates about it. It will be obvious. So, if you are trying to argue that any particular ruler is guilty of “blatant kufr”, you are mistaken by default…because you would not need to exert any effort to prove it. It means basically, a ruler declaring publicly, “I do not believe in the Shari’ah” or “I have converted to Christianity”. Mere failure to implement Shari’ah in its entirety does not constitute “blatant kufr.” Being subservient to the West does not constitute “blatant kufr”, it is the very nature of Mulk Jabryy.
You see, you have to differentiate meanings here. “Islamic government” does not mean “perfect government”; an “Islamic state” does not mean “Utopia”.
Our Prophet ﷺ told us that we would suffer oppression and injustice, and our rulers would not uphold our rights, and he did not call them kuffar for that. They are what they are, oppressors and sinners. And, again, it is upon us to resist and oppose, with careful precision, those aspects which specifically do not adhere to the Deen. No more, no less.