Ali then said:

"However, al-hamdulillah, Allah has promised to preserve His religion and with time the major scholars began to address these issues. With regards to the topic referred to as hakimiya, we first heard Ibn al-Ghunayman's fatwa that the issue of the division of tawhid is not one that leads someone into heresy."

[To which Abu Khadijah replies]

"My response: I refer you to my previous answers on the issue of: just because someone responds does not mean he is correct. What is correct is what is found from the Salaf and what the scholars bring
today by way of evidences. Running around looking anyone who will support
you is not from the methodology of the Salaf!"

Again your ignorance betrays you. The point is this issue is not one of those matters which is agreed upon by the Salaf and therefore deserving wala and bara. Ibn al-Ghunayman is considered to be among the leading scholars in the umma on
aqidah. His commentary on Kitab at-Tawhid from Sahih al-Bukhari is sufficient. He was hounded out of Medina by some ignorant people and their state supported activities. Why is the ijtihad of Ibn al-Ghunayman any less worthy than other ijtihadat? Is it because he disagrees with your group? Also in Sh Abdur-Rahman's book (which was the intent of the initial post) He has the following headings in chapter one:

The types of Allah's tawheed (Anwa' at-Tawhid):
* Tawhid ar-Rububiya
* Tawhid al-Uluhiya
* Tawhid al-Hukm
* Tawhid al-Asma' was-Sifat

If this were incorrect, then why didn't Ibn Baz correct this if this was such an issue as you would like to portray? Why on the contrary, did he praise the book and suggest it be printed and distributed?

Ali then said:

"We then had the fatwa from hay'a kibar al-ulima that Murad Shukri's book was one of bid'a (Irja') trying to pass itself off as a book of the Sunna and that the author and publisher must publically renounce these ideas."

[To which Abu Khadija responds]

"My Response: I've already dealt with this above."

...And we have shown your deception in the above!