>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.