>They analysed it and found only the part with violent verses (so-called Medinan ones), not the part which resembles Biblical passages. So what? It's still evi

>They analysed it and found only the part with violent verses (so-called Medinan ones), not the part which resembles Biblical passages. So what? It's still evidence it existed. >hence not a real chain up till 9th century This is obviously nonsense historical revisionism. >The verse exists, but it does not automatically mean all hadith are as valid as they were in Quran Firstly I didn't say that and secondly neither hanafism nor jafarism are sects.