Annaqued has failed to respond to Sunday 24 December posting (4)

A philosophy can only be judged through its impact

An analysis can not be rational if an analyzer examines the impact of a philosophy on its followers without examining how its followers have received and interpreted it. Followers; for example,  practice philosophy, but they have misunderstood and misinterpreted it: people demonstrate by their action what they wrongly believe; for example  superstitions and false heretic dogmas have permeated Islamic culture; therefore, it is irrational to judge Islam by observing its followers deeply entrenched in practices those run counter to the true spirit of Islam. An analysis, therefore, is rational if an analyzer knows that he has to analyze the actions of the adherents of a philosophy in the light of a philosophy not a philosophy in the light of their actions. (An analysis that observes the attitude and behavior of its adherents to judge a philosophy can be rational, if adherents have not only rightly understood it but also have followed its dictates. Problem: An analyzer will have no means to know it if he does not know a philosophy. An analyzer can only judge that adherents have not only understood a philosophy, but also have followed its dictates if he knows what a philosophy means by its giver or creator.

When one analyzes the actions of the adherents of a philosophy in the light of a philosophy, he knows adherents through philosophy.

When one analyzes a philosophy in the light of the actions of its adherents he knows a philosophy through adherents.

A philosophy can only be judged through its impact, and one can judge the impact of a philosophy if he knows a philosophy, and if he does not know so he will attribute every action of its adherents to a philosophy.

Neither Carlye nor Louis can judge Islam through its impact as they have no understanding of Islam in the light of the meaning given by of its giver/provider