Annaqued has failed to respond to Sunday 24 December posting (2)

An analysis is to be rational in itself

An Analysis that analyzes the nobility and rationality of any philosophy is to be rational in itself. An analysis can be rational if one knows the philosophy before one judges it and judges its impact on its adherents and on the world. A philosophy can only be known if one knows it through its author/creator; for example, one must learn/know what Marx means by his philosophy of Marxism. An analysis, therefore, is rational, if an analyzer knows philosophy and knows it as it is explained by its author not as it is understood by its analyzer. An analysis, therefore, is rational, if an analyzer analyzes a philosophy in the light of the meaning of its giver/provider or its creator not in the light of his understanding of a philosophy.

The analysis of Louis is not rational in itself as he analyzed Islam in the light of the understanding of Carlye. Louis Palme says ‘ perhaps it is appropriate to revisit Thomas Carlyle’s lecture on Muhammad and see what he got right and what he may have gotten terribly wrong. Revisiting could be appropriate if Louis analyzed Islam in the light of the meaning given by its provider/prophet so to understand what Carlye ‘got right or wrong’. A revisiting of the irrational was not rational and to exacerbate things further revisiting was dictated by the biases and prejudice of Louis.