I was staying out of this fight until
>>18082814
>Why weren’t Shia hadiths destroyed if they were a lie?
Shi'a ahadith tend to trace to ahlalbayt who include the Prophet, of course, but also the Imams. So they're not "lies", they just relate jurisprudence and Quran-commentary from the Imams. There was a community keeping the Imami lore alive.
Also Malik from the Madina thought highly of Imam Ja'far's rulings, preserving a lot of them. In his day it looks like there was a "shiat Umar" as well, or at least Malik figured the family of 'Umar also had some good jurisprudence. He just related all of it, from both families, with respect, simply evaluating both families' laws against the sunna of the Madina in his day.
So: not lies.
>Why weren’t Ibadi hadiths destroyed if they were a lie?
Ibadi hadiths aren't lies though. The 'Ibadiya venerate most the same Companions as Sunnis, especially 'Ammar. Maybe 'Ikrima (to pick on one) was too extremist for Sunnis today but his ahadith are widely disseminated in Sunni collections and tafasir.
>Why weren’t the satanic verses destroyed if they were a lie?
That's a question which Shahab Ahmed ("Before Orthodoxy") answered pretty well: the story was entertaining. It made the Prophet look like a hero fighting the demons. Christian literature has a lot of this too for our own saints.
The Zutt story though... we're still waiting for a coherent Muslim answer. We can (well, Ahmed could) see the value in the Satanic Verses. It's a good story! and in the end, Satan does not win, the Prophet fends off the bad verses.
But in the Zutt story, Muhammad just limps back home on Ibn Mas'ud's arm with a dripping ringpiece.
