Mcleod Gets Analyzed

[Degha Singh]

http://sikhtoons.com/Mcleod.html

sikhtoons......always telling it like it is....

[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.

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 =)

First natsilakh, my apologies as I could have added that you “innocently” misrepresented as I see it.

Degha does not suggest his example PROVES anything. You say that Degha uses this example to PROVE Mcleod’s intentions and attempt to dissect this example. In fact, Degha proceeds to explicitly point out that by reading the whole book one gains a better understanding of McLeods viewpoint.

I read Degha’s conclusionas Mcleod suggests that Sikhi is an offshoot of Hinduism and Islam. You say that other portions of the book may suggest the same.

On a different note, you have provided your view of Mcleods statement. Here is the statement repasted and my view follows it:

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.

Mcleod essentially suggests that pre-existing “ideas” founded Sikhi, and that Guru Nanak Dev Ji initiated a new path by drawing upon these ideas. So Guru Nanak Dev Ji is the founder in one sense but not another. Which founder of something has not drawn upon pre-existing ideas to come up with something independent and entirely new?

A person who comes up with an invention does not create atoms. Likewise, a new ideology does not begin in a vacuum. Scholarly rhetoric is a generous way to describe this statement of Mcleods.

[Pakandi baba]

All in all that link in first post is a good read!

[randip singh]

if you enjoyed that then read these rebuttles:

http://globalsikhstudies.net/r_link/mcleod.htm