My Stance on Abu al-Khattab & the Ghulat
My Stance on Abu al-Khattab & the Ghulat
Salam alaykum dear brothers and sisters, John Andaluso speaking here.
Many of you may have come across my posts discussing Ghulat figures such as Abu al-Khattab and their beliefs, from their perspective.
But you may wonder:
- What is my stance on Abu al-Khattab, Ghulat, and their beliefs?
Unequivocally accursed kuffar, with deviant beliefs. This has always been my stance and never changed.
Here, I explain their beliefs from their perspective and then refute it:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Andaluso24/status/1374422857510318082
Here I explain my method of analyzing their beliefs:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Andaluso24/status/1397226421530071040
- Why discuss things from the Ghulat’s perspective? Why did I say Abu al-Khattab’s legacy is oppressed?
Abu al-Khattab’s legacy being oppressed doesn’t mean his legacy is bright or that he was a believer.
It means we do not know things from his perspective. If we do not know things from his perspective, then we don’t know why people believed in him - so how can we refute him?
It’s like a Salafi attempting to refute us Shi’a from what Salafi scholars say about the Shi’a, instead of discussing our beliefs from our perspective:
Shaykh al-Ghizzi clarifies:
“One may say:
Shaykh al-Sanad wants to conclude the position on Ghuluw, Ghulat, and Batini sects from what came in the ahadith of Ahlulbayt [condemning them].
Yes.. however, our research will be less by than complete, as we must have insight on what the Ghulat themselves say [i.e, from their perspective] if we wanted our research to be complete.”
قد يقول قائل: أنّ الشّيخ السّند يُريد أن يستخلص الموقف من الغلو والغلاة والفرق الباطنية من خلال ما جاء في أحاديث أهل البيت. نعم .. ولكن سيبقى البحث ناقصاً، إذ لابدّ من الاطّلاع على ما يقوله الغلاة إذا أردنا للبحث أن يكون كاملاً.
Shaykh al-Ghizzi also adds:
“I have not come across Shi’i libraries on a book speaking of Ghuluw and Ghulat in a logical manner, better than a contemporary book to a contemporary marja by Shaykh Mohammad al-Sanad.
Beautiful book .. however, I have not found in it not even one line which the Shaykh quoted from the books of the Ghulat.”
لم أطّلع في المكتبة الشّيعية على كتاب تحدّث عن الغلو والغلاة بشكل منطقي أفضل من كتاب معاصر لمرجع معاصر، وهو كتاب: (الغلووالفِرَق الباطنية، رواة المعارف بين الغلاة والمقصرة) للشّيخ محمّد السّند. كتاب جميل، ولكن مع حسن هذا الكتاب وأفضليّته على غيره، لم أجدفيه سطراً واحداً قد نقله الشّيخ السّند عن كتب الغلاة.
- Do I believe the Ghulat are Muslim?
Definitely not - anybody who believes the Imams are equal to Allah, etc is not a Muslim.
However, at a lower level - some definitions of Ghuluw may differ.
Shaykh al-Saduq believed anyone believing the Prophet cannot absentmindedly forget (Sahw) is a Ghali, Shaykh al-Mufid disagreed with him on this and wrote a treatise called عدم سهو النبي refuting this.
However, if a view is established as ghuluw and constitutes shirk with Allah - I do not consider a holder of these views to be Muslim.
Their beliefs aside - can the Ghulat be attributed to the Shi’a from a purely social sense ?
Meaning, to an outsider - can we say “the Ghulat are deviant Shi’a”?
The answer is yes, and this is what I meant about the Ghulat being attributed to Shi’a but this is from a social sense - not that they have pure Shi’i beliefs taught to us by the Ma’sumeen (a).
For example, Zaydis would be kuffar per our ahadith, as they deny so many of our Imams.
Shaykh al-Mufid in al-Irshad below days that, “among the Shi’a is those who believe that Fatima miscarried Muhsin.. so upon the words of this group, the sons of Amir al-Mu’mineen are 28”
وفي الشيعة من يذكر أن فاطمة صلوات الله عليها أسقطت بعد النبي صلى الله عليه وآله ولدا ذكرا كان سمّاه رسول الله عليه السلام وهوحمل محسنا، فعلى قول هذه الطائفة أولاد أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام ثمانية وعشرون، والله أعلم
Shaykh al-Mufid is evidently including Zaydis as part of Shi’a in the social sense, as they are the sect attributed to Shi’a who deny Fatima miscarrying Muhsin.
None of the Imamite (Twelver) scholars denied this, as Shaykh al-Tusi clarifies:
Talkhis al-Shafi by Shaykh al-Tusi (9) (d. 460 AH / 1067 CE):
مما أنكر عليه -أي على أبي بكر- ضربهم لفاطمة عليها السلام، وقد روي أنهم ضربوها بالسياط، والمشهور -الذي لا خلاف فيه بين الشيعة- أن عمر ضرب على بطنها حتى أسقطت. فسمي السقط: محسنا، والرواية بذلك مشهورة عندهم. وما أرادوا من إحراق البيت عليها حين التجأعليها قوم وامتنعوا من بيعته، وليس لأحد أن ينكر الرواية بذلك، لأنا قد بينا الرواية الواردة من جهة العامة من طريق البلاذري وغيره، وروايةالشيعة مستفيضة به في ذلك
“And from what I condemn regarding him [Abu Bakr] is their beating of Fatima, and it has been narrated that they beat her with a whip.
And the mashhoor (popular) - to which there is no dispute among the Shi’a - is that Umar beat her on the stomach until she miscarried. So the miscarried [infant] was called ‘Muhsin’.
And the narration is popular with them (Sunnis), and what they desired to burn the house on her (Fatima)..”
Conclusion:
And as I conclude this blog, there has been previous lies and slanders against me about this topic.
I have now clarified this, and if after reading this blog, they continue to lie and slander against me, even though I've explained my stance, may Allah never forgive you for slandering a fellow Shia brother in wilaya.
Learn to have husn al-dhan the same way you do for your own people.
Wasalam
John Andaluso
