Thread by @DrJavadTHashmi

Sorry, Bobb-o, but I never claimed that the Ḥadīth cannot be morally evaluated. In fact, I do that myself. Yet, what you elide is the fact that Ḥadīth skepticism of some sort or the other is rampant amongst Muslims, much to the chagrin of conservative orthodoxy. 1/

https://twitter.com/jihadwatchRS/status/1431079535559135235

In other words, Muslims themselves--like myself--morally evaluate the Ḥadīth, reinterpret some, reject many of them (including those in the Ṣaḥīḥ collections), problematize others, & even display moral disgust at not a few of them. 2/

What you cannot do, however, is claim that the Prophet *was* something or the other when the source you get that from is one that you consider faulty. That's just shoddy logic. 3/

Again, the most you can do is say the following: This particular depiction of the Prophet, which is likely not historical, is morally repugnant. 4/

I understand why you are throwing a hissy fit here since your entire hate career is based on this shoddy methodology: First, you use outdated scholarship, which you don't even understand, to claim that the Prophet didn't exist, a fringe belief. 5/

Then, on top of that, then you write about how bad the Prophet was based on a source you don't think is reliable at all & of a figure you don't think even existed. Just fantastic! You, sir, are a charlatan. 6/