[yespkorg]

To give you a taste, let me apply your simplistic argument upon yourself.

You derived the way to drive a car from a kafir. You obey kafir derived laws of driving. If you say there is a classification between matters like this from something else then your claiming that All sovereignty and right of legislation does not belong to God. That classification is secularism and secularism is kufr. You are rejecting the idea that Quran, sunnah, ijma and Qiyas is the only basis for law in Islam. Your drivers manual and license does not start by saying that all laws and sovereignty belongs to God. Hence your a taghut and jihad against you and killing you is permitted.

...what?

Following laws such as these is not the same thing as legislating them, and this is the point that you are missing... which is not surprising. I am in this place and under two facets of compulsion to follow (in general) the laws of the land I am in, so long as they do not involve disobedience to Allah;
1) The covenant of security, from which is derived the necessity of acting according to the law of wherever one lives as it is part of the covenant, and-
2) 'ikrah, in the sense that I am under compulsion to obey this law (in such matters) because otherwise there is prison awaiting, and prison is 'ikrah according to the righteous scholars.

In any event, as Muhammad Mukhtar ash-Shanqiti said in his tafsir Adwaa' al-Bayan, there is no difference in attempting to share Allah's right of Hukm and His right of Worship; they are functionally the same...

It has several fallacys:
1) Ibn Kathirs and ibn taymiyyas opinion on the Mongol govt. does not become equated to ijma.
2) the idea that he openly refused to apply Islamic law is just a assertion. By your standard the former head of al Azhar is a kafir for his position on niqab.
3) the idea that laws from so called non-muslims sources, leads to being a kafir even though the law does not oppose Islam, is a unproved assertion leading to Muslims in Britain and America being a kafir for agreeing to live under Kafir derived laws. Infact, 99% of Muslims would be kafir as they all are subjected to such laws existing in their government.

Moreover, in 1400 years of Islamic history, could you list out the names of all the governments you consider Islamic ? From which can you provide which governer of these Islamic government derived all laws by derivation of Quran and hadith only? Actually, Ibn Katheer reports ijmaa' on this point in his al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah. So unless you want to say that his report of ijmaa' is unreliable (that would be interesting to see...) then your point 1) is useless.

So are you saying... that there is no proof he was called to do it? That does not matter, because he has not applied it in the first place... he is not a man without access to ulema, there are ulema by the truckload in Syria and he can call them up anytime, but he doesn't call them up except to have them tortured or imprisoned...

If the government's rulings are 'asli Shari'ah, then the aathar of Ibn Abbas on "Kufr duna kufr," applies clearly- so if they deviate from them once or twice from desires or what-have-you, then this is not absolute kufr- what is absolute kufr is what you see today, here, and now- legislating and making others follow those laws, requiring them to refer to them for judgment, imprisoning and murdering those who call for the Islamic laws to be applied, et cetera...

The former head of al-Azhar, Muhammad Tantawi, is not a person I respect, nor am I saddened at his passing, given his life-long dedication to serving Mubarak, but I have not made takfeer of him just as I have not made takfeer of the Murabitun head for calling niqab an 'evil hinduisation of women,' and an 'Arab deviation from the deen.'

And what's more, again, the point is that it is ruling by and legislating those laws that makes one a kaafir, not living under them! One has two justifications and the other has zero.

I am not in the practice of passing out opinions on governments that have passed away, because it is not relevant to the discussion at hand...

Its not just shia umbrella but even Sunni umbrella. And your missing the crux, the basis upon which you charge alawis of Kufr has failed as they shifted their beliefs. Your basis of takfir is then no more than than ignorance and bigotry. Like I said, if a kafir uttering shahadah at the very moment he is to be killed in war is enough to make his blood non-violable then your reasoning is quite far away from having any connection to Islam. Except there is no proof to this assertion! And what is more, it does not matter if someone SAYS the Shahadah and then refuses to act according to it! Because belief is speech and action according to the Sunnis, so if a person says 'La ilahah illAllah,' and then worships an idol, his statement of shahadah is baatil, false, rejected, et cetera. So the person who says 'La ilahah illAllah,' and then applies secular laws and tortures and murders people and makes his security forces go around forcing people to prostrate on his picture and say 'There is no god but Bashar al-Asad' (naudhubillah), then his Shahadah is equivalent to the tasdeeq of Iblees and Fir'aun...

That's more like a clutching at straws rant than a Shari'a case of takfir and killing. So none of that is relevant to you? You do not know Tawheed very well... just western ideologies and lots of words....