Search the Community

Arabic: العليئية English: Al-'Aliyiyyah or Aliyiyism or Aliyiy refers to a Sufi order or tariqa within Zaydi Shia Islam. Aliyites are a Sufi group that have an emphasis on each individual studying to become like their own scholar, with an emphasis on acting on one's own ijtihad, interpreting Quran and Hadiths, and not blindly following religious beliefs. Because of this, the Aliyites are not organized and they don't have a central authority or single scholar or Imam that unifies their community, and internal differences are abound. The Aliyites have a range of different beliefs and interpretations. They believe there can be more than one Imam at one time, for different locations and different people groups who speak different languages. The job of an Imam is to help people stay guided and teach them how not to make ijtihad and to prevent misinterpretation and abuse of religious beliefs and systems, as well as to be the rope of Allah, a spiritual guide. Similar to the Alevis of Turkiye, the Aliyites don't force anyone to practice Islam or do things like wearing hijab, claiming that everything is a choice, Allah gave all human beings free will, and these matters are between a Muslim and God and are personal, and so judgement isn't passed for women who don't wear hijab or people who get tattoos, etc., although following the Quran and Hadith and imams is encouraged and highly beneficial in the Aliyite tradition. Nobody knows for sure how old the Aliyite movement actually is or how many followers it has, due to its secretive and underground nature, but one narrative claims that the Aliyite faith developed when Yemeni Zaydi Shiites and Yemeni Sufis from the Sunni Hanafi Madhab, traveled to the Sokoto Caliphate, a Sunni Islamic Country in West Africa, while traveling the global trade routes, and ended up being embedded in a group of Muslims who believes the Orishas were prophets and imams whose message had been distorted, and who had been deified when they were merely servants of Allah, and not deities. These Muslims who believe in the orishas were considered heretics, and often fought with leaders and the government of the Sokoto Caliphate. Even though the Aliyites don't worship the Orishas, they have some heretical beliefs, including a belief that Imam Ali is a continuation of the life of Jesus Christ, and that Imam Ali also was the same person as Orisha Ogun, the Orisha of Iron and War. Imam Ali/Orisha Ogun is seen as a figurehead or the face of Aliyite Islam. The Aliyites also believe Orisha Obatala (whom they called Imam ObatAllah) was Jesus Christ too.

Started a new thread for this since I am baffled and the other thread is going in different directions. [someone] stated that ghuluw is only calling Imams as God. Everything else is game on. What is everyone's thoughts on this. I find this to be shirk in itself. Of course he presented a narration to support this. But this narration is in clear violation of the Quran. We read Surah Ikhlas several times a day in which Allah says, there is nothing like him. Yet, this brother says Imams can be just like Allah, but it is only ghuluw to call them Allah. Is this a fringe opinion or is this a widespread belief? Please pitch in.

Testimonies from some modern shia scholars. Some examples from the beliefs of Ghulat which were adopted by modern Shia. Example #1: Ghulat added the phrase (Ali un wali Allah) into the Adhan(call to prayer) and Iqamah. Shia Shaikh Saduq wrote in his book: هَذَا هُوَ الْأَذَانُ الصَّحِيحُ لَا يُزَادُ فِيهِ وَ لَا يُنْقَصُ مِنْهُ وَ الْمُفَوِّضَةُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ قَدْ وَضَعُوا أَخْبَاراً وَ زَادُوا فِي الْأَذَانِ مُحَمَّدٌ وَ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَ فِي بَعْضِ رِوَايَاتِهِمْ بَعْدَ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّداً رَسُولُ اللَّهِ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً وَلِيُّ اللَّهِ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَ مِنْهُمْ مَنْ رَوَى بَدَلَ ذَلِكَ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَقّاً مَرَّتَيْنِ وَ لَا شَكَّ فِي أَنَّ عَلِيّاً وَلِيُّ اللَّهِ وَ أَنَّهُ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَقّاً وَ أَنَّ مُحَمَّداً وَ آلَهُ صَلَوَاتُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِمْ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ وَ لَكِنْ لَيْسَ ذَلِكَ فِي أَصْلِ الْأَذَانِ وَ إِنَّمَا ذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لِيُعْرَفَ بِهَذِهِ الزِّيَادَةِ الْمُتَّهَمُونَ بِالتَّفْوِيضِ الْمُدَلِّسُونَ أَنْفُسَهُمْ فِي جُمْلَتِنَا ‘This is the authentic (Sahih) Adhan, nothing is to be added or subtracted from it. The Mufawwidah’s (form of Ghulat), may Allah curse them, have fabricated traditions and have added to the Adhan مُحَمَّدٌ وَ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ (Muhammad and the family of Muhammad are the best of mankind) twice. In some of their traditions, after saying أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّداً رَسُولُ اللَّهِ (I bear witness that Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah) (they add) أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً وَلِيُّ اللَّهِ (I bear witness that ‘Ali is the Wali of Allah) twice. Among them there are others who narrate this أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (I bear witness that ‘Ali is the commander of the faithfull) twice. There is no doubt that ‘Ali is the Wali of Allah and that he is the true commander of the faithful and that Muhammad and his family, peace be upon them, are the best of creatures. However, that is not of the original Adhan. I have mentioned this so that those who have been accused of concocting tafwid and have insulated themselves in our ranks should be known”. (Man Laa YaHduruh Al-Faqeeh, vol. 1, pg. 290 – 291) Example #2: Ghulat rejected the possibility of forgetfulness(Sahw) in Salah(prayer) from Prophet Muhammad(saw). Classical Shia scholar Shaikh Saduq wrote in his book “Man la yahduruhul faqeeh”: وكان شيخنا محمد بن الحسن بن أحمد بن الوليد رحمه الله يقول: أول درجة في الغلو نفي السهو عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله، ولو جاز أن ترد الاخبار الواردة في هذا المعنى لجاز أن ترد جميع الاخبار(4) وفي ردها إبطال الدين والشريعة. “And our sheikh Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn al-Walid(rahimuhullah) said: “First level in Ghulu is denial of Sahw(forgetfulness) from Messenger(saaw), and if it is permitted to deny narrations with that meaning, then it’s permitted to deny all narrations, and in their denial is restriction(ibtal) of religion and Shariat”. Then Sheikh Saduq quoted the words of his Shaikh, He added: وأنا أحتسب الاجر في تصنيف كتاب منفرد في إثبات سهو النبي صلى الله عليه وآله والرد على منكريه إن شاء الله تعالى. “And I hope to gain reward in compiling a book dedicated to prove Sahw(forgetfulness) of Nabi(saw) and refutation to those who reject that”. Shia scholar Sheikh Saduq further said: إن الغلاة والمفوضة لعنهم الله ينكرون سهو النبي صلى الله عليه وآله ويقولون: لو جاز أن يسهو عليه السلام في الصلاة لجاز أن يسهو في التبليغ “Al-Ghulat and al-mufaqida May Allah Curse Them, reject possibility of forgetfulness(Sahw) from Nabi(saw), they say: If error in prayer is possible, then error in tabligh is also possible” Example #3: The Ghulat believed that Imams had Ilm al-Ghaib (knowledge of unseen). Shaikh Mufid wrote in his book Awailul Maqalat (page 38): فأما إطلاق القول عليهم بأنهم يعلمون الغيب فهو منكر بيِّنُ الفساد “As for saying that the Imams know Ghaib, so it is an extremely evil and corrupt belief. Ibn Shahr Ashoob (586 AH) wrote in his book Mutashabih al Qur’an (Volume 1 page 211): النبيّ والإمام يجب أن يعلما علوم الدين والشريعة ولا يجب أن يعلما الغيب وما كان وما يكون، لأنّ ذلك يؤدّي إلى أنّهما مشاركان للقديم تعالى “The Prophet and the Imam must have full knowledge of the Islamic laws,but it is not incumbent upon them to have knowledge of ghaib, after all that would then mean that they are partners of Allah. Shia scholar, Shaikh Sadooq in his book Kamal al Deen, page 116 stated: قد أكثرت في ذكر علم الغيب، والغيب لا يعلمه إلا الله، وما ادعاه لبشر إلا مشرك كافر We have expanded a lot about the issue of knowledge of the unseen, and no one knows the unseen except Allah (swt), and no one claims it for a human except for a polytheistic disbeliever (mushrik kafir).[Kamal al Deen, page 116] Example #4: The Ghulat held the belief of Tafwidh Classical Shia scholar Shaikh Sadooq in his book Iteqadat, under: باب الاعتقاد في نفي الغلو والتفويض Chapter: Belief in negation of the Ghulu(exaggerating the status of the Imams) and the tafwidh(delegation of affairs of creation) stated: وروي عن زرارة أنه قال ، قلت للصادق ـ عليه السلام ـ : ( إن رجلا من ولد عبد الله بن سبأ يقول بالتفويض. قال ـ عليه السلام ـ : ( وما التفويض ) ؟ قلت : يقول : إن الله عزوجل خلق محمدا صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وعليا ـ عليه السلام ـ ثم فوض الأمر إليهما ، فخلقا ، ورزقا ، وأحييا ، وأماتا. فقال : ( كذب عدو الله ، إذا رجعت إليه فاقرأ عليه الآية التي في سورة الرعد ( أم جعلوا لله شركاء خلقوا كخلقه فتشابه الخلق عليهم قل الله خالق كل شيء وهو الواحد القاهر ) . فانصرفت إلى رجل فأخبرته بما قال الصادق ـ عليه السلام ـ فكأنما ألقمته حجرا ، أو قال : فكأنما خرس And it is narrated from Zurarah that he said, I said to Imam al Sadiq (as): “Indeed a man from children of Abdullah ibn Saba professes by tafwidh.” Said [Imam] (as): “And what is tafwidh?” I said: “He says: Indeed Allah (swt) created Muhammad (pbuh) and Ali (as), then delegated the command to them, for creation, and to give rizq (sustenance), and to give life, and to give death.” So [Imam (as)] said: “Enemy of Allah (swt) lied, when you go back to him then recite upon him these ayaat (verses) in Surah al Ra’d (Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation): [Or do they assign to God partners who have created (anything) as He has created, so that the creation seemed to them similar? Say: “God is the Creator of all things: He is the One, the Supreme and Irresistible.”] So I turned (went back) to (that) man, then informed him by what Imam al Sadiq (as) had said, so it (his reaction) was as if he had swallowed a stone or had become mute/dumb.” Similarly, Shia Shiekh Sadooq in his, Uyun Akhbar al Redha, Volume 1, Page 219, stated: حدثنا محمد بن علي ماجيلويه (ره) قال: حدثنا علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم عن أبيه عن ياسر الخادم قال: قلت للرضا عليه السلام ما تقول في التفويض؟ فقال: إن الله تبارك وتعالى فوض إلى نبيه (ص) أمر دينه فقال: (ما آتيكم الرسول فخذوه وما نهيكم عنه فانتهوا) فاما الخلق والرزق فلا، ثم قال عليه السلام: إن الله عز وجل يقول: (الله خالق كل شئ) وهو يقول: (الله الذي خلقكم ثم رزقكم ثم يميتكم ثم يحييكم قل هل من شركائكم يفعل من ذلكم من شئ سبحانه وتعالى عما يشركون Told us Muhammad b. ali Majiloweh (ra) who said: Told us ali b. Ibrahim b. Hashim from his father from Yasser the servant who said: I said to Imam al Redha (as): “What do you say about al tafwidh (the belief that Allah has delegated the affairs of creation to His chosen people)?” So [Imam (as)] said: “Indeed Allah (swt) delegated to His (swt) prophet command of His (swt) religion.” Then [Imam (as)] said: “So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you.” (Al Qur’an 59:7), as for the creation and the sustenance, then no.” Then [Imam (as)] said: “Indeed Allah (swt) says (in al Qur’an 13:16): “Allah is the Creator of all things”, and He (swt) says (in al Qur’an 30:40): “It is God Who has created you: further, He has provided for your sustenance; then He will cause you to die; and again He will give you life. Are there any of your (false) “Partners” who can do any single one of these things? Glory to Him! and high is He above the partners they attribute (to him)!” Example #5: The Ghulat denied the occurrence of the marriage between Umar bin khattab(as) and daughter of Ali(as) – Umm Kulthum. We read in Shia book Mirat ul Uqool: عن الشيخ محمد بن محمد بن النعمان أرفعه إلى عمر بن أذينة قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: إن الناس يحتجون علينا أن أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام زوج فلانا ابنته أم كلثوم، و كان عليه السلام متكئا فجلس و قال: أ تقبلون أن عليا أنكح فلانا ابنته؟ إن قوما يزعمون ذلك ما يهتدون إلى سواء السبيل و لا الرشاد ثم صفق بيده، و قال: سبحان الله أما كان أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام يقدر أن يحول بينه و بينها، كذبوا لم يكن ما قالوا، إن فلانا خطب إلى علي عليه السلام بنته أم كلثوم فأبى فقال للعباس: و الله لئن لم يزوجني لأنزعن منك السقاية و زمزم فأتى العباس عليا فكلمه فأبى عليه فألح العباس، فلما رأى أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام مشقة كلام الرجل على العباس و أنه سيفعل معه ما قال، أرسل إلى جنية من أهل نجران يهودية يقال لها صحيقة بنت حريرية فأمرها فتمثلت في مثال أم كلثوم، و حجبت الأبصار عن أم كلثوم بها و بعث بها إلى الرجل فلم تزل عنده حتى أنه استراب بها يوما فقال ما في الأرض أهل بيت أسحر من بني هاشم، ثم أراد أن يظهر للناس فقتل فحوت الميراث و انصرفت إلى نجران، و أظهر أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام أم كلثوم، Umar ibn Uzaynah asked Imam Jafar Sadiq: ‘People claim that ‘Ali married his daughter to such a person’. The Imam, who was until then sitting down, stood up and said angrily, “Whoever holds such a viewpoint is misled.” Subhanallah! Was Imam ‘Ali unable to free his daughter from their clutches? He could have stood between them and her to protect, they have fabricated a lie … (the whole story of Umm Kulthum being replaced by Jinn and the Jinn’s marriage to Umar thereforth) Esteemed Shia scholar Mulla Baqir Majlisi says regarding it: أقول: لا منافاة بينه و بين سائر الأخبار الواردة في أنه زوجه أم كلثوم، لأنهم صلوات الله عليهم، كانوا يتقون من غلاة الشيعة، و كان هذا من الأسرار، و لم يكن أكثر أصحابهم قائلين لها، كذا ذكره الوالد العلامة قدس الله روحه I say: There is no contradiction between this narration and the other narrations that he married his daughter Umm Kulthum, because the Imams would fear from the Ghulat Shia, and this is from the secrets, and because plenty of his companions didn’t believe in it, this is what Allamah has also mentioned. (Mirat ul Uqool, Vol. 21, p. 198). Example #6: The Ghulat denied the three daughters of Prophet Muhammad(saw) being his biological daughters. Esteemed Shia scholars such as, Ibn Shahr Ashoob in, Manaaqib, vol. 1, pg. 159; and Al-Majlisi in, Bihaar Al-Anwaar, vol. 22, ch. 2, pg. 191 stated: “And the bidah(innovation) that Ruqayyah and Zaynab were two daughters of Haalah, sister of Khadeejah”. Shia scholar Al-Tustaree(d. 1415 AH) said that this bid`ah(innovation) was started from the book of Abu Al-Qaasim Al-Koofee, we read: “Then there is no doubt that Zaynab and Ruqayyah were daughters of the Prophet(saw) , and the bid`ah which it has been mentioned in the book of Abu Al-Qaasim (Al-Koofee).”(Al-Tustaree, Qaamoos Al-Rijaal, vol. 9, pg. 450). This, Ali bin ahmad Abu Al-Qaasim Al-Koofee was Ghali Shia. There is an ijmaa`(consensus) among classical Shia scholars to contemporary scholars on the status of Abu Al-Qaasim Al-Koofee. They have all said that he was a “Ghulat” (exaggerator), “kadhaab” (liar), and a person who had a “faasid madhhab” (corrupt belief). Classical Shia scholar Ibn Al-GhaDaa’iree (d. 411 AH) said about him: “Liar, Ghaali (exaggerator), person of bid`ah and discourse. I saw that he has many books, and he is not turned to.” (Kitaab Al-Du`afaa, pg. 82, person # 104) Classical Shia scholar Al-Najaashee (d. 450 AH) said about him: “Ghulaa (exaggerator) at the end of his life, and he has a fasad (corrupt) belief, and he composed many books, many (of those books while) on the fasaad (corrupt belief)” “And this man is claimed to the Ghulat a great position”. (Rijaal Al-Najaashee, pg. 265 – 266, person # 691). Classical Shia scholar Al-Toosee (d. 460 AH) said about him: He was an Imaamee (12er Shee`ah) of the straight path, and he composed many relevant books, from them were: Kitaab Al-Awsiyaa‟, Kitaab fee Al-Fiqh `ala Tarteeb, and Kitaab Al-Muzinee. Then, was confused, and showed the madhhab of al-mukhammasah, and he composed books in the (states of) Ghulu and confusion” [Al-Toosi, Fihrist Al-Toosee, pg. 271, person # 390] Imam Jafar Sadiq a.s about ghulat (exaggerators)

“We have woken up (i.e. a time has reached) and there is no one who is more inimical (an enemy to us) than those who claim to love us”[1] - Imam al-Sadiq (a) Introduction The most serious challenge to the school of Ahl al-Bayt came from the Ghulat. This is because, unlike external enemies whose opposition to the Imams was apparent, the Ghulat were internal enemies whose opposition was hidden. The Ghulat claimed to be the true followers of the Imams and in possession of their ‘secret teaching’. They called for the recognition of the ‘esoteric’ status of the Imams which they considered to be the only means of acquiring salvation. This proved to be especially attractive to many among the gullible Shia who were otherwise sincere in their love towards the Ahl al-Bayt. We will have occasion to discuss the beliefs of the Ghulat in more detail, suffice it to say that a major component of the world-view of these ‘exaggerators’ was to deify the Imam in some way. How did the Imams react to the exaggerated beliefs concerning them? Keeping in mind how exemplary they were in their piety to Allah, how exceedingly committed they were to defending Islam against corruption which they saw as their foremost duty, and how earnest they were in their concern for guiding the Muslims, there can only be one answer to this question. How it must have affected them to find that there were ‘devils’[2] out there using them as figureheads to drive a message that was wholly antithetical to their own. Indeed making a mockery of all that they stood for! This article seeks to gather relevant evidence about the Imam’s reaction from an early work, the so-called Rijal al-Kashshi, accepted by all scholars to be an authoritative source of information on the ‘men’ i.e. companions around the Imams. The work is especially suited to our purposes since it provides intimate details as to the interaction between the Imams and their contemporaries who associated with them in some way (be it positive or negative). I have taken the liberty to arrange the reaction of the Imams as per the categories below ... Read On: https://shiiticstudies.com/2020/09/10/the-imams-against-the-ghulat/

Were they trying to destroy Islam? Or was it to prevent the spread of polytheism among Muslims?

Salam, Ramadan Mubarak to you all! I would appreciate any information provided about the origins of ghuluww/Shi'i extremist tendencies particularly in the subcontinent. I am currently compiling research for an academic presentation and would prefer academic sources (but not necessary). Also - any primary sources concerning ghuluww in general would help a lot. Thank you in advance.

http://www.al-khoei.us/books/?id=513 Very important stuff in here.

إن بيانا تراءى له الشيطان في أحسن ما يكون صورة آدمي من قرنه إلى سرته The Devil appeared to Bayan in the most handsome form that a human can have from the top of the head to the navel [Ja`far al-Sadiq] God caused the holy pre-existent spirit which had created the whole of creation to dwell in flesh that He desired [Shepherd of Hermas] He keeps appearing every now and again ... he takes Adam’s clothes off and puts it on again [Epiphanius] Bayan b. Sam`an and the Bayaniyya The status of the Imam was a question that was fiercely debated in the second century of the Islamic Era before the different positions crystallized. It is important to go back to history to hear the different voices in the debate. This is relevant because we find some unease to this day between what is believed in the popular Shi`i consciousness and our literary sources. One such key figure who participated in developing a peculiar Imamology was Bayan b. Sam`an. Who was Bayan? Bayan b. Sam`an (most likely from the South Arabian tribe of Nahd) was a seller of straw in Kufa. We would classify him as a Ghali and he was indeed cursed by the `Aimma. He is said to have associated himself with Hamza b. `Ammara, a speculator about the divinity of Ibn al-Hanafiyya [heading a splinter of the Kaysaniyya]. Bayan later attached himself to the claim of Abu Hashim the son of Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya. What did the Bayaniyya believe? We do not have any extant documentary evidence that comes directly from Bayani circles, but we have early statements of contemporaries reformulating their beliefs, we also have the entries of the heresiographers whose work it was to classify different sects based on their belief-systems. The concept of a Demiurge In a report in al-Kashshi, Hisham quotes Bayan as saying: إن بيانا يتأول هذه الآية وَ هُوَ الَّذِي فِي السَّماءِ إِلهٌ وَ فِي الْأَرْضِ إِلهٌ، أن الذي في الأرض غير إله السماء، و إله السماء غير إله الأرض، و أن إله السماء أعظم من إله الأرض، و أن أهل الأرض يعرفون فضل إله السماء و يعظمونه فقال: و الله ما هو إلا الله وحده لا شريك له إله من في السماوات و إله من في الأرضين 'Bayan interprets this verse “and He is the one who is God in Heaven and God on Earth” (43:84) that the one on Earth is not the God of Heaven, and the God of Heaven is not the God of Earth, and that the God of Heaven is greater than the God of Earth, and that the people of the Earth recognize the merit of the God of Heaven and magnify Him' This is an important piece of evidence, because it shows that the sectarians were influenced by the concept of the Demiurge in their cosmology. I use this word in the sense of a second divine power in heaven. This power could assume many different names like Wisdom of God, Spirit of God, Logos, Metatron etc. It owes its origins to Gnosticism [and Middle-platonic notions], which had a long pre-Islamic pedigree in the melting pot that was Kufa. Gnosticism presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable God and the lesser power that was pre-existing with the unknowable God. The latter is the ilah al-ard [lesser god] in Bayan’s terminology, the site of God's power on the Earth. The real unknown God is so distant and incomprehensible to humans that they can only know him through a lesser being which can interact with matter. Who is the Lesser God on Earth? The Bayaniyya held that the Imam was deified because of housing the indwelling Demiurgic divine-light particle. This particle transmigrated (Tanasukh) i.e. passed down - from the Biblical patriarchs, to the Prophet Muḥammad, to the Shiʿi Imams. قال بيان بالهية علي عليه السلام، وأن جزءا إلهيا متحد بناسوته، ثم من بعده في ابنه محمد بن الحنفية ثم في أبي هاشم ولد محمد بن الحنفية، ثم من بعده في بيان هذا In other words, the bodies of prophets and `Aimma were receptacles to be filled with a divine spark or Spirit. It would at some point leave the body of the Imam when he dies and transmigrate to another. All the supernatural abilities of the Imam derives from being a host to the divine particle, without it the Imam is just an ordinary human. I term this a “possessionist” Imamology. Anyone who has studied early Jewish-Christian Christologies will notice how closely those parallel what has been presented here. This particle is said to have passed through Ali > Ibn al-Hanafiyya > Abu Hashim and potentially Bayan himself. Al-Baghdadi says in al-Farq bayn al-Firaq: ان بَيَانا قَالَ لَهُم: ان روح الْإِلَه تناسخت فى الانبياء والائمة حَتَّى صَارَت الى ابى هَاشم عبد الله ابْن مُحَمَّد بن الْحَنَفِيَّة ثمَّ انْتَقَلت اليه مِنْهُ يعْنى نَفسه فَادّعى لنَفسِهِ الربوبية على مَذْهَب الحلولية Bayan said: the Divine Spirit transfused into the prophets and the `Aimma until it reached Abi Hashim Abdallah b. Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya then it went into me [i.e. he deified himself]. al-Shahristani says in al-Milal wa al-Nihal: قال بيان: حل في علي جزء إلهي، واتحد بجسده، فيه كان يعلم الغيب اذا اخبر عن الملاحم وبه قلع باب خيبر Bayan said: The divine particle transfused into Ali, and united with his physical body, with it [in this divine particle] did he know the knowledge of the Unseen when he used to inform others about the trials [at the end of times] and by it [not his physical body] was he able to uproot the door of Khaybar. What is the Implication of this? In essence, the Bayaniyya and many other Ghulat were marked out from other 'orthodox' Muslim communities in that they did not close the door to prophecy. Prophecy continues because the access to the divine realm did not end with the Muhammad. Since they deified the Imams, anyone who is a legitimate deputy of this Imam-god would be a “prophet”. At first, Bayan saw himself as the “prophet” of the one with the divine spark. Sa`d b. Abdallah says in his al-Maqalat that Bayan sent a letter to al-Sadiq announcing his prophethood and commanding him among other things “to surrender so as to be safe … for you cannot know where God will place his prophethood .. and whoever warns has been excused”. The Imam ordered the messenger who brought the letter, a hapless man called Umar b. Abi Afif al-Azdi, to eat the letter in front of him, and that was his reply. There are clues, however, that he later evolved from this position and claimed to have possessed the spark himself. Consequently, he claimed to have access to special kind of knowledge which enabled him to predict the future [as a corollary] among other powers. Interpretation of the Qur`an The Ghulat in general are characterized by dabbling in Ta`wil [esoteric interpretation of the Qur`an]. The Bayaniyya, in particular, developed a literalist anthropomorphic interpretation of the Qur`an. They considered the unknowable God as being a Man of Light based on Q. 24:35. This Man of Light has various constituent parts e.g. having a hand based on Q. 48:10. In this vein, they considered that all will be destroyed [including God’s other parts] except for His face based on Q. 28:88. Apocalyptic Expectations A key feature of most of the Ghulati groups was the belief in the return of the dead before the day of judgment initiated by the eschatological return of of the expected messianic deliverer. The Bayaniyya believed in the Raj`a of Abu Hashim as the Mahdi. The End In 119/737 AD, Bayan and another Ghali al-Mughira b. Sa`id joined forces and rose in revolt against the Umayyad governor of Iraq, Khalid b. `Abdallah al-Qasri. The rebellion was quickly put down and the leaders as well as some of their followers were executed and then burned. As the Imam says: كان بيان يكذب على علي بن الحسين عليه السلام، فأذاقه الله حرَّ الحديد، وكان المغيرة بن سعيد يكذب على أبي جعفر عليه السلام فأذاقه الله حرَّ الحديد Bayan used to lie about al-al-Sajjad عليه السلام and al-Mughira b. Sa`id used to lie about al-Baqir عليه السلام so Allah made them to taste of the heat of the iron [put to the sword].

I don't know if I have the name right but I think its called Ayat AL Takwini The ahlul bayt apparently according to this everything of Allah goes through them my sustenance and the universe all goes through ahlul bayt is this true? It sounds like ghulat to me but I see a lot of respected scholars talk about it and I want to learn the reasoning behind it if anyone can help explain or give any sources of information I would appreciate it.