oh they always will, don't worry...unless it's in their favour of making us look bad...then and ONLY THEN, they will say..."SEE...YOU OWN BUKHARI SAID THIS...WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT HUH HUH??"

The authenticity of Imam Bukhrari's collection of Hadith is proven with tangible evidences and scientific researches. Example, The letter written for the Prophet by one of his scribe to the King of Yemen was documented in the collection of Imam Bukharees hadithes long time before the actual letter was discovered which is still preserved in the museum of Turkey.
Scientific research conducted in Egypt based on the Hadith regarding the House Fly carrying the disease under one wing and cure under the other is proven to be true.
So do u still Question the authenticity of Imam Bukharees work and accuse the Narrators such as Abu Huraira of fabriacation?

"and so have ours..most have the ullamas stamps on them..plus we mostly follow the books of our infallible imams ..so you can't top that "

But the most authoritative book according to the shia is al-kafi, and it is now recognized by modern shia scholars as being full of absurd and baseless traditions.
And this, primarily because of the influence of sunni rijal on shia thought...

How could an INFALLIBLE Imam endorse a book that has many weak hadeeth, according to the modern shia scholars?

Actually, Umayya was the son of Harb, and when Abdul Muttalib died, the Banu Hashim lost dominant control over the custodianship of the Kaaba. The only remaining department they controlled was the one held by Abbass (R), the uncle of the Prophet (S).

He was NOT A ROMAN SLAVE, and to allege such a thing is baseless. The Quraysh were in total control over the Kaaba prior to the coming of Muhammad (S), for hundreds of years. There is dispute over where the name Quraysh originated, and the correct view seems to be, if I remember correctly, with the personality of Fihr.

As far as Abdul Muttalib, he was the son of Hashim. When his father died, Hashim's brother Mutallib took him under his care. And according to Arab custom, this is how he retained the KUNYA ABDUL Muttalib. His original name was Shaiba.

dimples: my point is that your sources do not stand up to the same scrutiny we apply to our own texts.

Uff! Theek hai you win..habby now P:

No such thing. There I just topped it. :)

and so have ours..most have the ullamas stamps on them..plus we mostly follow the books of our infallible imams ..so you can't top that

our hadith have been scrutinized by our own scholars and they and they are applied after they are critically assessed

but umer we can say the same thing bout ure hadiths ..?

shia sources don't stand up to the same scrutiny sunni scholars have applied to their own knowledge.

Ya but our credible sources - sunnis don't accept P: so what does it matter then anyway?

and if we take something from your books then you guys will say oh that's in this context or in that context...

kher Allah knows best.

You should try to find good credible sources

Hi Umer - I googled and found from two sites - something about him being a roman and he was a slave and he was taken in.. Is this not true? I also saw a reference of this from the book "Hussain Saviour of Islam" but I am sure sunnis don't find this book agreeable to them, so I guess this is a moot point.

dimples: i'm curious as to where ur getting ur info that umayya was a slave boy outside not from the sons of abd munaf.

There were north Arabians (Adnanis, descendents from Adnan son of Ismail son of Ibrahim),and South Arabians (Qahtanis, descendents of Qahtan son of Ya'rub -from whom some theories say the name 'Arab' came), those to the north (including Hijaz and Makkah) are descedned straight from Ibrahim (Arabized Arabs -the Jerham tribe living in the area married their daughter to Ismail after he was moved to Makkah with his mother by Ibrahim as we all know), and those from the South (Yemen and Oman) are descended from a different ancestory. Quraishites are all related to each other, like is not all of the Arabians (Arabs of Arabia) but all HUMANITY!!! Geneology may ascribe a people to a certain man in their long ancestry, but there are 'forefathers' of that man used for a certain people's common ancestry, and those forefathers are shared by other peoples identified by other race names or ancestries!!! The name 'Quraysh' itself is the name of one of Ismail's descendents, Hashim being one of this Quraysh's descendents, but Hashim is related to other NON-HASHEMITES of course, in Quraysh!!!! They all come from the same forefather, Quraysh!!!!! But did you know that the real 'slave' (or thought to be) was "Abd al-Muttalib" ("the slave of al-Muttalib")?? Should we then doubt the origin of Abd al-Muttalib because he was thought to be the slave of al-Muttalib when he was brought to Makkah by his uncle???? Read our marvellous, award-winning book of seerah "the Sealed Nectar" (found online!), and learn on the pre-Islamic Arabs, the years preceding the advent of Prophet Muhammad, and after he was sent as a Messenger to all humanity (and NOT to call us to follow Ali like your scholrs want us to believe).

The Shia should stop caring so much about 'bloodlines', for the only criterion of superiority is 'piety'!!! Abu Bakr and Omar shared a common ancestor with the Prophet not older than 10 generations if I remember correctly!!!!! All today's humanity are descended from one of Noah's 3 sons!!! Allah said on Noah: {And we made his descendents those remaining " (37:77).

well all i can't find any geneology on bani ummayah? all that is written is that Ummaya was a slave boy, who the brother of Hashim adopted .. so Ummaya was in fact an outsider and there is a big chance then his decendents were not of the lineage of Hasrat Ibrahim?

hey umer2281 - interesting point - I wil def. look into this and see what I find..if anyone can also add to umer's point, it would be interesting to know if Omar and Muwaiya etc. were in fact decendents of Abd munaf or were they from an outside lineage?

Dimples: abd munaf fathered both bani umayya and bani hashim. the entire quraysh clan are decendants of ismael

Also what does Ayatoullah Khomeini have to do with all this..he was an Alim but not an Imam in the true sense..whatever he did was between him and God and no shia should or does follow an alim blindly as they are not infallible - but our Imam-e-Waqt is Imam Mehdi (A.S.) from the progeny of the holy Prophet (SAW) and that is our Massiah..now if sunnis don't believe then it shouldn't matter as you answer to Allah and so will we and the truth shall be revealed one day inshaAllah..but why do these things have to be the reason of bloodshed and aggressive dispute?..So let's leave the judging to Allah (SWT).

Bas Khalas..

Now I joined this forum for fruitful discussion, but if all I find is barbarism and ignorance then I suppose there is no reason for me to stay.