Imaam al-Albani stated, "'Al-Haakimiyyah' is a branch of the branches of Tawheedul-Uloohiyyah, and those who focus their attention upon this newly invented saying in the present age use it as a weapon not to teach the Muslims the Tawheed that all of the Prophets and Messengers came with, but rather as a political weapon…So if it were not for the fact that they use this saying as a tool for political propaganda of theirs, then we would say, 'This is our merchandise that has been returned to us'…So we are the ones who propagated this hadeeth, and then it reached the others. Then they advanced one part of Tawheedul-Uloohiyyah or worship, with this innovated title for political aims." (Al-Muslimoon no.639)

So the difference is not in the innovated nature of the fourth categorisation – that is agreed upon -, but it is in the perceived harm arising from making Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah independent. And such perceptions vary from Shaikh to Shaikh, as we have seen, but they are all agreed on the fundamental principle of it being newly-introduced.

However, the destitution did not end there. The desperation increased and increased until the Qutubiyyah resorted to truly laughable modes of argument and extraction of proof. So then they sought to use as evidence the praise of Imaam Ibn Baaz for the book ‘as-Sirat’ in which there is a chapter called "Tawhid ul-Hukm" – and tried to convince the unsuspecting that this is a justification of their bid’ah. But the truth of the matter is that al-Hakimiyyah comes under both ar-Ruboobiyyah and al-Uloohiyyah, and Ibn Baz’s silence about this chapter heading is to be understood from this angle – that sovereignty in rulership and legislation belongs to Allaah and comes under Ruboobiyyah – and no Salafi denies this or has ever denied this, despite the cleverly orchestrated Qutubi propaganda against the concepts of Sunnah and Salafiyyah.

Know – O brother and sister for the sake of Allaah – that a major part of the methodology of the Qutubis in their argumentation is not too dissimilar to what we have illustrated in this particular example. When something comes that supports them, then it is obligatory to blindly follow it. And when something comes that refutes them, they go looking for a difference of opinion, to justify their stance. And when there is even the slightest hint in the words of a particular Shaikh of support for their viewpoint, they will jump on it. In other words, they will leave the muhkam (decisive) rulings of the ‘Ulamaa and adopt the mutashabihat (ambiguous). And you should also know that many of the texts they bring as evidence are actually against them, not in favour of them, and from Allaah is the refuge.