The source you cited at [0] is incomplete. They analysed it and found only the part with violent verses (so-called Medinan ones), not the part which resembles B

The source you cited at [0] is incomplete. They analysed it and found only the part with violent verses (so-called Medinan ones), not the part which resembles Biblical passages. > every authentic hadith transmission chain must go back to the time of the Prophet [Muhammad Abdullah] The thing is, we cannot prove his real identity (e.g. Mecca, where he had been allegedly born, has no historic traces apart from Kaaba), and some of the members, hence not a real chain up till 9th century. That was what I meant there were no hadith chain going before. You cannot cite a narration chain to an imaginary hero and call it authentic. > Anything a hadith says is valid by virtue of us being told to follow the instructions of [Muhammad] in the Qur'an. Hanafi and Jafari sects would not arise if that were the commonly held belief. The verse exists, but it does not automatically mean all hadith are as valid as they were in Quran. See where stoning penalty applies, reckon that thing is documented in hadith but thrown away from Quran. Hence we conclude stoning penalty does not exist. (according to Islamic precedence, Quran always prevails Sunnah)