The Qutbiyyah - (see here, here and here for the Major Scholars corroborating the existence of something known as "the Qutbi Manhaj", proving its not an invention of the "Madkhalis") - attempt to make Takfir in relation to some Muslim countries with their claim that their rulers have abolished the Sharee'ah and instituted another law in its place, and in this they make use of the sayings of numerous scholars that we have detailed elsewhere on this site (see here, here, here, here, by way of example). Whilst it is certainly true that there exist Secular Laws in almost all Muslim lands, in varying degrees, it is rare to find a Muslim ruler, who systematically abolished the entire Sharee'ah and put in its place something else. This is because most of the Secular Laws found in Muslim countries got there through colonialism and imperialism. The only example that can be given is that of Kemal Ataturk who was not a Muslim but a Doenmeh Jew, from the offspring of the followers of Sabbetai Tzevi, a 17th century Jewish Mystic who claimed Messiahship and later accepted Islam out of taqiyyah, in order to protect himself, whilst concealing his Jewish heritage. He was followed in that by a couple hundred families, whose offspring became known as the "Doenmeh". It was these people who later formed the "Young Turk" movement that deposed the Sultan, and from them was Kemal Ataturk who subsequently came to power and did what he did to Turkey.

The point here is that the methodology of the Qutbiyyah is a Leninist-style revolution, which is to remove the current ruler(s), as Sayyid Qutb advocated in "Fi Zilal il-Quran (3/1451)" (see here), and this first requires Takfir. And thus they wish to make Takfir of the situation predominant in many Muslim lands of the presence of Secular Laws, but to effect this, they need to make use of the sayings of the Scholars that speak of a ruler systematically abolishing the entire Sharee'ah, and instituting a completely new law to replace it - and it is hard to find a Muslim ruler who has done this, rather most rulers have come to power in the situation that the Secular Laws already exist. And for this reason, you see that very same Scholars whose words they use on the issue of systematically abolishing the whole Sharee'ah and placing another law in its place actually refute these people in their Takfir and their misguidance (see here as an example), and certainly do not agree with them in their Takfir of the rulers in certain lands, like what they do with the rulers of the Gulf countries. So this proves that the attachment of these people to what the Scholars speak of regarding a ruler who systematically abolishes the entire Sharee'ah and puts another law in its place is an attachment through which they can deceive the people into agreeing with their Takfir of the situation predominant in most Muslim lands of the presence of Secular Laws to varying degrees and for which those rulers were not necessarily responsible for instituting. This is what their Leninist revolutionary manhaj actually depends upon. And none of the Scholars are with them, neither in their Takfir of certain rulers, like those in the Gulf, nor in their revolutionary manhaj. Their attachment to these scholars is a fake one, its an opportunistic one and they are not with the Scholars and neither are the Scholars with them.

Shaykh Ibn Jibreen on What the Majority of the Rulers are Upon Today

Shaykh Ibn Jibreen said (audio here):

It is known that al-kufr al-bawah (manifest, clear kufr) is an open, outward matter, such as when he abolishes the teachings of Islaam, or we see him for example, destroying mosques, or he fights the people of the mosques (i.e. those who frequent them), or he abolishes the [Sharee'ah] law courts, or he abolishes the religious lessons, for example, or we see him burning the copies of the Qur'aan, or that he orders for them to be burnt, and he promotes, assists the books of misguidance, the books of the Christians, and whatever resembles them, and he spreads them and makes reading them to be binding, or we see him erecting those things that are worshipped besides Allaah, such as idols and the likes.

This is considered manifest, clear kufr.

As for the [types of] matters in which ijtihaad can enter into, then we alluded to one of these types last night. And this is what the majority of the rulers (wullaat) are upon, from that which is called "judgement by the secular laws" (hukman bil-qawaaneen), such as these laws, overwhelmingly, the affair pertaining to them is that they consider benefit (maslahah) in them, but they did not abolish the legislation (shar') with a complete abolition, such that they do not judge with anything from it at all.

Since Allaah said, "And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed they are the disbelievers" (al-Maa'idah 5:44), so the likes of these, when they have this angle of approach, then we do not speak of their kufr, but we consider them to be in error, in this ijtihaad which involves changing something from the legislation, even if it was by the path of ijtihaad. So for example, their permitting of zinaa [i.e. in action, not as a matter of belief], when it is with the consent of both parties, and like their abandonment, or the abolition of the hudood, the punishment for stealing, or the punishment for false slander, or the punishment for drinking alcohol, or permitting alcohol [i.e. in action, not as a matter of belief], and announcing the selling of alcohol, and whatever resembles that.

There is no doubt, that this is a great sin, however there could be, for example, excuses for them, those in which they consider themselves to be justified (i.e. excused in that). So for example, they excuse themselves from this by saying that in their land they have those people who are not Muslim, and that being severe upon them will make them flee. So when they have an angle of approach, then Allaah will reckon them, but, in any case, there is no doubt that if we judged by the shar' (legislation), and implemented its teachings, there would be sufficiency in this and much good.

Source: Cassette: Sharh Lum'uat il-I'tiqaad, (No. 7), Tasjeelaat at-Taqwaa, Riyaadh. Download the audio file.

See also:

Note: Shaykh Ibn Jibreen got involved with Muhammad al-Mis'ari and his organisation CDLR in the early 90s as a result of which he was led to hold good opinions about these people and the likes of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna. This led him to vocalize his defence of these harakiyyeen. As a result of this, some of the Scholars refuted him and spoke about his errors.

As for his statement above, then it is a stake in the da'wah of the followers of Sayyid Qutb, the people of Takfir, Khurooj and their allies, sympathizers and defenders. It couldn't have constituted a greater smiting of their lips, for despite all the clangor and racket they make using the names of certain scholars, none of these scholars are with them in making Takfir of some of the rulers in the Muslim lands. And in reality, these people are not with the Scholars at all, the Scholars are just a means to an end, even the likes of Shaykh Ibn Jibreen in whom they found something they could run with, he is not with these people in their enmity, hatred towards the Scholars and Rulers, and their methodologies of Takfir and Khurooj. He was misled into wrongly considering the likes of Qutb and Bannaa as Scholars by the Harakiyyeen, and so he became sympathetic to them and to the likes of Safar al-Hawali and Salman al-Awdah. These latter two played a significant role in deceiving the youth about the likes of Sayyid Qutb - only to be abandoned by these same youth who subsequently found solace in the more hardcore Takfiris such as Isaam Barqawi and Mustafa Haleemah, and many of whom declared Safar and Salmaan kafirs for selling out and being treacherous to the (haraki) da'wah, with the latter now sitting with Sufis and Shi'ites and calling for nearness towards them.