Salam
وعليكم السلام
Mujareen and Ansar (original ones) are a very small minority of Muslims near the end of the Prophet's (s) life. They aren't majority.
Do you have a list of them? Would people like Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Talha, az-Zubayr, Abu Ubaydah, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqaas, Abd Al-Rahman bin Awf, Sa'd ibn Ubadah be on that list?
Fatima (s) speech rallied them, woke them up, and I believe for the most part they performed their duty.
What is the evidence that Fatima عليه السلام ورضي الله عنها gave that speech?
Who was rallied from the original Muhajiroon and Ansar?
What was the duty that they performed?
The majority of people - who Ali (a) didn't want to fight with his small band of followers (original companions very few compared to how many Muslims are now there who fought or denied Mohammad (s) most of his Propethood) - were frankly ignorant of the Quran and Sunnah.
So these Muslims, who are frankly ignorant of the Qur'an and Sunnah, were good enough to fight with and support the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم but they were not good enough to do so with Ali عليه السلام ورضي الله عنه? That's a very strange explanation.
In addition, I limited the discussion to the Muhajiroon and Ansar, so we don't need to include the Tulaqaa', who are all ignorant of the Qur'an and Sunnah according to you. As of right now, the discussion centers around the Muhajiroon and Ansar, what was their duty, and how you are able to verify that any of this happened.
Majority of muhajareen and ansar were ready to fight if Ali (a) gave the orders, but he spared them their blood, and majority of the "Muslims" were people who fought Ali (a) and the first band of believers and who didn't understand Quran or Sunnah nor took the religion seriously.
All of this is problematic for several reasons:
1) What is the evidence for any of it?
2) Why would Imam Ali عليه السلام ورضي الله عنه do things differently from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم? Why would the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم include these people in his followers, but Imam Ali عليه السلام ورضي الله عنه exclude them?
3) Your takfeer of the majority of the Muslims during the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's time based solely on your interpretation of he events that happened 1400 years ago, based on a system of preserving history (Ilm al-Hadeeth) that you don't believe in.
Moving on from Sahaba - discussion.
It seems we have yet to scratch the surface of that discussion.
The circular reasoning is that all kinds of hadiths existed. What we have left from what is written is also a very small amount compared to the original amount of hadiths and their diversity.
I don't see how that is circular reasoning, nor do I see any evidence that "all kinds of hadiths existed" but no longer exist. A lot of hadeeth books were lost, but that was during the times of the Mongols, long after Sunnism was codified. Obviously, modern day 12erism was codified more in the 1700-1800s and reinterpreted in the past 40 years, but that's an entirely different discussion.
Your last sentence: " Because one fits your preconceived narrative and the other one didn't." is ironic, because this what your system does.
You will need to provide an example of this. My examples of you doing it is believing in the Fadak Sermon without providing any reasons why. Why do you believe this actually happened? Did you do an analysis of its historicity, or is it just simply that it fits your belief so you accept it?
It fits righteousness according to a belief system, but how do you know the belief system is right, well due to righteous men chain of reports, and how do you know they are righteous, well by what they report confirming a type of belief system.
No it doesn't, since a person could be Adl and Dabit even if he is considered non-Sunni. Here are some quick examples:
عباد ابن يعقوب الرواجني بتخفيف الواو وبالجيم المكسورة والنون الخفيفة أبو سعيد الكوفي صدوق رافضي حديثه في البخاري مقرون بالغ ابن حبان فقال يستحق الترك من العاشرة مات سنة خمسين خ ت ق
لمازة بكسر اللام وتخفيف الميم وبالزاي ابن زباد بفتح الزاي وتثقيل الموحدة وآخره راء الأزدي الجهضمي أبو لبيد البصري صدوق ناصبي من الثالثة د ت ق
أحمد ابن عبدة ابن موسى الضبي أبو عبد الله البصري ثقة رمي بالنصب من العاشرة مات سنة خمس وأربعين م 4
إبراهيم ابن يعقوب ابن إسحاق الجوزجاني بضم الجيم الأولى وزاي وجيم نزيل دمشق ثقة حافظ رمي بالنصب من الحادية عشرة مات سنة تسع وخمسين د ت س
إسماعيل ابن موسى الفزاري أبو محمد أو أبو إسحاق الكوفي نسيب السدي أو ابن بنته أو ابن أخته صدوق يخطىء رمي بالرفض من العاشرة مات سنة خمس وأربعين عخ د ت ق
أيوب ابن عائذ بتحتانية ومعجمة ابن مدلج الطائي البحتري بضم الموحدة وسكون المهملة وضم المثناة الكوفي ثقة رمي بالإرجاء من السادسة خ م ت س
دينار ابن عمر الأسدي أبو عمر البزار آخره راء الكوفي الأعمى صالح الحديث رمي بالرفض من السادسة بخ ق
عبد الله ابن عبد القدوس التميمي السعدي الكوفي صدوق رمي بالرفض وكان أيضا يخطىء من التاسعة خت ت
غالب ابن الهذيل الأودي [أبو الهذيل] الكوفي صدوق رمي بالرفض من الخامسة س
هارون ابن سعد العجلي أو الجعفي الكوفي الأعور صدوق رمي بالرفض ويقال رجع عنه من السابعة م
[/size]
That should be a small enough list to show you that what you have been taught about Ilm ar-Rijal isn't accurate.
You don't take seriously the many (very many) chains naming the 12 Imams seriously. Think about the reason why... so the amount of hadiths and chains doesn't prove 12 Imams to you.
It has more - to do with - what you just said "Because one fits your preconceived narrative and the other one didn't."
There are a host of reasons why I don't take those chains seriously, and it is not because I'm not 12er. Even 12ers don't take those chains seriously and reject them, because they are not reliable. Had they been authentically reported from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم we wouldn't have Shi'as differing ever time an Imam died. Even the closest to the Imams, according to the 12er narrative, didn't know the successor. Rejecting these reports has nothing to do with Ilm al-Hadeeth or preconceived narratives, its based on them being obvious later fabrication.
However, if you would like, we can go through the chains and see just how reliable they are together.
And we see this clearly the case. For example, a person narrates, Fatima (a) house was lit on fire, he is automatically flagged unreliable just for narrating that.
Someone narrates Imam Baqir (a) did a miracle - automatically flagged unreliable and liar.
This is just an empty claim until we actually see proof. هاتوا برهانكم إن كنتم صادقين
The system is so chaotically bias, to lead one way, and so yes, it leads that way. It's circular defined to collect "authetnic" hadiths from all sorts of narrators narrating what is already believed in.
It's not there didn't exist numerous hadiths contradicting that or even more hadiths than ones "collaborating" each other.
As we have seen time and time again from you:
1) You claim something is circular without actually showing why that is.
2) You make claims about how Adalah is defined in hadeeth science despite it not coinciding with reality.
3) You completely ignore anything about Dabt, and turn a system that verifies its reports through corroboration into simply "all sorts of narrators narrating what is already believed in."
4) You make the claim that Ahl al-Hadeeth accepted hadeeths based on what they already believed in, rather than believing what they believe the authentic reports show, despite the fact they rejected ALL ahadeeth praising Mu'awiyah, accepted more reports praising Imam Ali رضي الله عنه than anyone else, accepted all kinds of reports that praise Ahl al-Bayt, all kinds of reports that disparage the Sahaba, and rejecting reports that say the Qur'an is Ghayr Makhlooq, and every report disparaging deviant sects except for the Khawarij.
Just face it, your narrative doesn't stand up to scrutiny.