Mcleod Gets Analyzed

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

Link: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082005/mcleod/intro.htm

McLeod Exposed - This is the guy that people rely on for Sikh information?

[natsilahk]

Sat Sri Akal:

Link: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082005/mcleod/intro.htm

McLeod Exposed - This is the guy that people rely on for Sikh information?

Some inconsistencies were shown, and some mistakes on Mcleods part were also displayed.

But, I do not think this "exposes" McLeod.

The whole "he's a Christian missionary thing, and that is the way he must remain and can never change, even though he's a non-believer" seems overplayed in that article.

[Lion(LK)King]

The wicked scholars on

http://globalsikhstudies.net/

Have also made an amazing effort to refute some of the things our Dear Mcleod bhaji has written.

It is an amazing site with all kinds of information regarding Sikhi, Sikh History etc :lol:

[Degha Singh]

got this from an email.....

Hew Mcleod is recognized as the authority on Sikhi in the academic world.

Here is an excerpt from his book Sikhism on his definition of Sikhi. After reading this you will all know who to blame for why people associate Sikhs with Hinduism and Islam.

3. Whether or not Guru Nanak was the founder of Sikhism depends upon how the word 'founder' is employed. Sikhs trace the beginnings of their community back to Nanak, and as the initiator of a new panth ('path') he is clearly to be regarded in this sense as its founder. In the Hindu tradition, however, there have been many new panths and if the line is traced back through the ideas rather than through the personalities the description is inappropriate.

4. The background of Sikhism was the Sant movement of northern India. Guru Nanak was a representative of the Sant movement and he expresses in his works the characterisitc doctrines of the Sants.

This is just a preview, if you were to actually read this whole book you would see that McLeod affirms that Sikhi is an offshoot of Hinduism and Islam and from the above you can see how he claims Sikhi is derived from the Bhagti movement and how it is a part of the Hindu tradition. Others who write similar propaganda include Harjot Oberoi, Pashaura Singh, Jagtar Grewal and Gurinder Mann.

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

"But, I do not think this "exposes" McLeod."

The man was given an illegitimate PhD, touted himself as an authority of Sikhism, used questionable resources and made up conclusions based on mere whims...I'd say that pretty much destroys any credibility you had.

[randip singh]

Sat Sri Akal:

Link: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082005/mcleod/intro.htm

McLeod Exposed - This is the guy that people rely on for Sikh information?

Some inconsistencies were shown, and some mistakes on Mcleods part were also displayed.

But, I do not think this "exposes" McLeod.

The whole "he's a Christian missionary thing, and that is the way he must remain and can never change, even though he's a non-believer" seems overplayed in that article.

My friend, have a good read of http://globalsikhstudies.net/

where eminent Sikh scolars have anihalated the Mcleodian theories and his poodle Feneche. Mcleod should admit his research was flawed.

Areas that are flawed:

1) Sikhism was an off shoot of Hinduism

2) Martial Theory - The Sikh religion was pasive and Guru Hargobind was forced to go military by either his Jatt or Rajput followers. A theory annihlated by Jagjit Singh.

3) Downplay the role in Sikhism of peopl of Lubana, Batra, Tarkha, Mazbhai, Ahluwalia and other backgrounds and overplay tyhe role of others....another theory annihalated by Jagjit Singh.

4)Martyrdom is a concept alien to the Sikh faith and stolen from other faiths and traditions.

There are many, many others but these are all tackled in the above site

[natsilahk]

got this from an email.....

Hew Mcleod is recognized as the authority on Sikhi in the academic world.

Here is an excerpt from his book Sikhism on his definition of Sikhi. After reading this you will all know who to blame for why people associate Sikhs with Hinduism and Islam.

3. Whether or not Guru Nanak was the founder of Sikhism depends upon how the word 'founder' is employed. Sikhs trace the beginnings of their community back to Nanak, and as the initiator of a new panth ('path') he is clearly to be regarded in this sense as its founder. In the Hindu tradition, however, there have been many new panths and if the line is traced back through the ideas rather than through the personalities the description is inappropriate.

4. The background of Sikhism was the Sant movement of northern India. Guru Nanak was a representative of the Sant movement and he expresses in his works the characterisitc doctrines of the Sants.

This is just a preview, if you were to actually read this whole book you would see that McLeod affirms that Sikhi is an offshoot of Hinduism and Islam and from the above you can see how he claims Sikhi is derived from the Bhagti movement and how it is a part of the Hindu tradition. Others who write similar propaganda include Harjot Oberoi, Pashaura Singh, Jagtar Grewal and Gurinder Mann.

That has nothing to do with us being an offshoot of hinduism or islam.

What I comprehend from above is...if we trace our "founder" back from idealogy rather than action, we would find out Sikhism started before Nanak. Remember, even Guru Nanak admits there were Sikhs prior to him.

Tracing idealogy back instead of flesh is a significant theory in Hinduism. He is not saying we are an off-shoot of Hinduism, he is just stating that Guru Nanak is regarded the founder in most aspects, but if we were to trace idealogy kind of like how Hindus do it with Hinduism, then we would have a different outcome.

NO other major world religion traces their founder back to idealogy. Christianity was created with Christ. Islam was created with Muhammond. These people had "prophecies" and hence were the first ones to come up with the ideas they showed to people.

Hinduism was the only major religion in which most of the Hindus trace back with idealogy.

Do you understand the point of his statement now? It has nothing to do and in no way is it implying that we are an off-shoot of Hinduism or Islam.

Perhaps other sections of the book may, but that is clearly not.

[buddasingh]

got this from an email.....

...This is just a preview, if you were to actually read this whole book you would see that McLeod affirms that Sikhi is an offshoot of Hinduism....

...Perhaps other sections of the book may [imply Sikhi as an offshoot of Hinduism]....

The above is each of your conclusions.

So natsilahk.. you began with a misrepresentation of what Degha said, countered him on your own created misrepresentation to support Mcleod. And then in a one line conclusion you agreed with Degha's actual point?

[natsilahk]

got this from an email.....

...This is just a preview, if you were to actually read this whole book you would see that McLeod affirms that Sikhi is an offshoot of Hinduism....

...Perhaps other sections of the book may [imply Sikhi as an offshoot of Hinduism]....

The above is each of your conclusions.

So natsilahk.. you began with a misrepresentation of what Degha said, countered him on your own created misrepresentation to support Mcleod. And then in a one line conclusion you agreed with Degha's actual point.

How did I begin with a misrepresentation of what Degha said?

Degha explicitly stated that Mcleod is known for having written multiple statements about how Sikhism is an offshoot of Hinduism + Islam. He then gives an excerpt from the book which he uses as an attempt to clearly prove that it is an offshoot.

So what did I do? I took his excerpt and proved it does not show that Mcleods intentions were to prove Sikhism was an offshoot of Hinduism+Islam.

How did my last sentence agree with Degha's actual point? I acknowledged I did not read the book in its entirety, so Degha COULD BE CORRECT, but the EXCERPT he showed DOES NOT prove that McLeod has intentions of showing that Sikhs come from Hinduism and Islam. edit : My last sentence is basically stating that the excerpt you showed was wrong, although you may be correct about the author and the book. So please, come back with another excerpt that has more "bank" and can prove your point.

How is what I said "my own created misrepresentation"....

We're obviously having problems following each other, so let's break it down, and answer those questions and go one step at a time =)

[Degha Singh]

Veerji,

Firstly I suggest that you and all Sikhs read mcleod's books on Sikhi, it is especially important that we all be aware of the misperceptions he is spreading through his works. Say a random university student is to write an academic paper on Sikhi, who do they turn to as the "authority", hew mcleod.

If you were to actually read through the book (which I highly suggest you do) you would realize the significance these statements have with mcleods agenda to say that Sikhi is a "syncretic" faith, implying that Sikhi is a fusion of Hinduism and Islam. Once again, I advise you to read the book and see this propaganda for youself. The time has come for us to write our own history rather than allowing others to write it for us.

Young Sikhs of today should take active steps to counter this propaganda.......write or be written.

bhul chuk maph.