The Motte-And-Bailey Fallacy and Hadith

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial (the “bailey”). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. This allows an arguer to guard their indefensible position by only addressing their less egregious position when challenged.

The motte-and-bailey fallacy is a tactic often used by upholders of Hadith. The Hadith are full of heinous and disparaging narrations attributed to the prophet and his companions that clearly contradict the verses of God in the Quran. These Hadith constitute the bailey, which are the controversial narrations that one is forced to accept if they ascribe to Hadith as a legitimate source of religious law. But when upholders of Hadith are pressed on their justification for upholding the Hadith, they only discuss the less controversial narrations, their motte.

A typical favorite claim that Hadith followers make is the claim that without Hadith how would one know how to do Salat? Ironically, there is no single Hadith that explains in detail how to perform the Salat.

Below is a small sample of the foul and nonsensical Hadith (the bailey) that Hadith followers prefer to avoid addressing.