I have a lot of issues with Shi'a books of rijal when they refer to people as "ghulat" or "a part of the ghulat." Guys like al-Kashshi pretty much lifted their definition of "ghulul" out of Sunni books. Ironically, these Sunni books pretty much viewed anyone who believed in bada, tanassukh, rajah, etc. as ghulat. They pretty much invented "ghulat" sects that have absolutely no historical of record of existing. When you look at what the Shi'a authors of rijal books did, it gets even worse. They'll say, "I heard from so-n-so that he gives weak ahadith and had ghulat tendencies." Very rarely (I say rarely simply because I haven't stumbled on an example proving otherwise) do you find any mention of which ghulat sect the transmitters in question actually belong to. Saying someone is "ghulat" at the times that these books were compiled was just as broad as saying that someone was "Sunni." Even al-Kashshi himself places doubt on the status of most of the people he lists as having ghulat tendencies. I'm going to try to write an article on this later iA because there's really just so many terrible problems with this in Shi'a books of rijal.