Please! More than your verbal diarrhea, I want you to quote our sources. So far it has only landed you in embarrassing situations which you fail to acknowledge because you have no shame.
I have no shame? You're the one giving half-stories. SubhanAllah @ these people. Who do they think they're fooling?
Here is another embarrassment for you.
Before copy-pasting from volume 15 of Tareekh at-Tabari, maybe you should have read his introduction in which he wrote, "This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me.
I have merely reported it as it was reported to me." (Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)
Translation, at-Tabari (rah) only reported all the narrations that arrived to him (on any matter) without authenticating them. He left that task for those who specialize in the field. In other words, it is pretty common to find weak narrations and fabrications in Tareekh at-Tabari.[/quote]
If only you'd keep your mind open when it came to Bukhari and Muslim, but no, it seems you become irrational when it comes to your main books. Many fabrications are found in your main books, even according to Sunni scholars, I'll copy and paste it here:
a sunni Scholar argues that
653 of the hadiths as written in al-Bukhari and Muslim are incorrect and should not be accepted.
His Arabic book is titled "The Cleansing of Bukhari and Muslim from useless Hadiths" (2008).
Firstly I want to know considering Sahih Bukhari a 100% authentic Book by sunni scholars is true or not? and if yes is it an Islamic fitwa or it is mostly for policies of Sunni Kings during history and accepted as a rule today? or has other reason?
Here is an article but in Persian containing names of many sunni scholars with evidence critiquing Sahih Bukhari and not considering in 100% authentic:
http://hawzah.org/FA/articleview.html?ArticleID=79418translating all of it takes much time. and maybe you can read it using google translator.
for example this article says Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his book Tahzib al-Tahzib volume 10 page 461 (تهذیب التهذیب، ج 10، ص 461) says there are some narrators in Sahih Bukhari that Muslim never consider them reliable and even critiqued them and did not narrate any hadith from them. for example one narrator Muslim never considered him reliable is نعیم بن حماد مروزی. some sunni scholars considered him reliable but still many not. I think evidences from sunni books mentioned in this article prove there is no Ijma among sunni scholars that Sahih Bukhari is 100% authentic.
For the time being, I will agree with you. But what does that make you when Imam Ali [ra] sent his sons to protect him while you are cursing him?
Imaam Ali (as) was an infallible, so he may be privy to certain knowledges that other laymen didn't know, of course, dependent upon Allah (swt). Perhaps it was willed that he show it as such, so that the enemies cannot blame him, yet they still did. Ironic, eh?