Annaqued has failed to respond to Sunday 24 December posting (3)

An analysis is to be rational in itself

An analysis cannot be rational if a definition of any religion or any philosophy is formed by observing the attitude and behaviour of its adherents. An analysis can not be rational if the success or failure of any religion or any philosophy is determined by observing its adherents. Both analyses are irrational as it is always possible that adherents know philosophy as the philosophy is; but do not practice it in its true spirit; or in other words, adherents, despite understanding philosophy do not demonstrate by their action what they believe; therefore; neither a definition of any religion or any philosophy can be formed by observing adherents nor the  failure or the success of its adherents in terms of material and spiritual gains can be attributed to that philosophy; for example, Muslims despite knowing Divine dos and don'ts do not abide by them, hence it is irrational to judge Islam by judging  Muslims.

Louis Palme says:

‘Ironically, Muslims today make up more than 1/6 of the world’s population, and most British scholars and politicians get tongue-tied saying anything—positive or negative—about Muhammad and his ideology.’

How scholars and politicians get tongue-tied saying anything positive? British scholars and politicians could get tongue-tied saying anything negative because of the fear of attracting the wrath of Muslims as Louis implies. Further, even most British scholars do not get tongue-tied saying anything about ‘Muhammad and his ideology’, they had to analyze Muhammad (P.B.U.H) and his ideology, not Muslims those ‘make up more than 1/6 of the world’s population’.