[teergoBissono]

I apologize for the interference. But DefendIslam and ibn Samir:

1. “Lies of Answering-Ansar” is just a section of SunniDefense. The latter will have more sections in future that will include refutations of their scholarly works as well.
2. The website does not focus on refuting Answering-Ansar. This was explicitly mentioned in “About” and is obvious from the section itself and the writings. It just exposes their deceptive approach to the public.
3. There are people who get influenced by this material found on Answering-Ansar. Thus, it is not entirely inappropriate to address Answering-Ansar, whether it is run by scholars or not.

This information is provided simply by contacting Sunni Defense. So I suggest both of should contact the website before jumping to conclusions without knowledge.

As for Ibn Samir. Let me deal with you. Firstly, your own credibility is questionable because of your following statement:

Of course, but it would be inaccurate for us to say that everything on Answering-Ansar is wrong; they have some bad sources, but we some things they have are true. For instance, we cannot doubt that Muawyia began an institution of cursing Ali or things like that.

This just shows what type of inclinations you possess. Now I understand the “None” for your “Madhhab.” We cannot just doubt but openly reject and refute your view that Mu`awiya (ra) began an institution of cursing `Ali (ra) with ample proofs. And by “we” I mean Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a. Many scholars have already done this in their works.

Also, Sunni Defense makes the same mistake of Answering Ansar by not bothering to check the authenticity of hadiths they post. Image we show a Shia a quote from Al Kafi, and they tell us that the hadith is weak because "Person 1" is weak, "Person 2" was known for ghulut, and "Person 3" is majhool! Imagine how silly we will look. They should say "such and such hadith is sahih according to Allamah Majlisi on his book "X", Pg. X"

The writings have referenced works of al-Majlisi II, Sahih al-Kafi, etc. to show the authenticity of the narrations they used. So far the only narration I saw that wasn’t shown to be authentic was the one used to prove a linguistic argument. Something that does not even require authentication.

a few articles with mistranslations doesn't mean anything

Apologetics at its worst. Half of the things you have said do not show a rational understanding. Lies like:

[1] All Sunni scholars believe in 4:24 to have been revealed declaring mut`a permissible

[2] Abd al-`Aziz al-Dihlawi cleared the Shi`a from the belief in tahrif of the Qur'an

[3] Asad Haydar is a Sunni scholar

[4] Sahih al-Bukhari doesn’t actually have “daughter of `ali” in the original texts, etc.

These are not mistranslations or a few mistakes (something you found interesting from the Shi`i comments).

Apparently, you haven’t read anything before commenting about it. Or else you are overwhelmingly inclined to the Shi`is. Because according to you these clear-cut lies don’t even make Answering-Ansar an unreliable source of information.

And lastly, how come you didn’t answer this question of the brother?:

Can you please tell us or them at least exactly what you found "not quite so accurate"? And which translations did you find to be "a bit off"? I'm sure SD is open for suggestions and corrections.

Before everything else. Don't make this thread a place for disussing whether Mu`awiya (ra) began anything or not. Start another thread if you want to defend you non-Sunni positions.