Sikhi: McLeod and HIs works

Discovering W.H. McLeod and His Work on Sikhism
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/19293-sikhi-mcleod-and-his-works.html
Baldev Singh

It seems an interesting read. Baldev singh vs. Mcleod when Mcleod is not present. I have not read the full report.Fairly lenghy to be read on internet. One may get the print out/hard copy and then study the full report.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=19293


pl. click here for full report.

Untitled Document
*

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

__________________

Actually -- McLeod does not have to be present for a debate. When a scholar publishes a work, the academic community is free to criticize it. In fact that is the whole purpose of publishing one's academic research -- to test one's understanding against opposing points of view. This contributes to the honesty of the process.

When you don't publish, then you are not serious in the eyes of other scholars. Why should anyone take you seriously if you can't stand up to a debate? Yes it is a tough world and it can be a mean world.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=19293

The problem with the criticism of McLeod in my view however is this. The debate has been overly focused on political perspectives. There are some really big flaws and holes in McLeod's work. He deserves criticism in that department. He has also been missing in action and not disposed to discussion. Therefore his mistakes of fact and biased conclusions are never adequately debated. But that may be the result of the political nature of the debate these days -- where all parties to the debate do little more than name-calling and finger-pointing.

And this is really unfortunate because McLeod has spread a lot of misunderstanding.

Thanks for your comments.Seems that you might have seen this if not read this.

The debate is useful if both the parties can put across their view points simultaneously. I mean the other person should atleast be given a chance of hearing else it may tend to be overshadowed by the opinions of the one who is commentating.

I think Mcleod has done a great job, almost single handedly.It inself should be commendable.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=19293
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=19293

I shall go through before discussng it. Thanks anyway for having a look into the article.

The article really isn't that good. But it goes over the main features of the current concerns with McLeod. And if Baldev Singh took this outline and then filled it in with specific information his critique would be a fine one.

Why do you think McLeod is so great? Looks like we disagree on this. In my opinion, McLeod's work is biased and in places woefully short on evidence.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=19293

When Baldev Singh says:

McLeod says, “The article is very well written, as it brings out the teachings of the Gurus clearly. If Sikhs fully accept their teachings, why then are they so attached to Darbar Sahib?” Look at the logic of McLeod! Not only has he changed the subject altogether,but has even injected the “Darbar Sahib” into the fruitless debate. He admonishes the Sikhs for not being faithful to the teachings of the Gurus. He completely ignores Paine’s distortion and offers no word of advice to Paine. Is it because Paine is simply exaggerating what McLeod himself said in The Evolution of Sikh community?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=19293

Baldev Singh is absolutely right. McLeod either has a hidden agenda, or he is blind to his own misunderstanding. And he demonstrates that he does not reflect very well on his own conclusions.

And that is where the criticism of McLeod's dissertation committee is fully on point. They apparently did not hold McLeod's feet to the fire either.

You have your observations.You have read .I have not read, I cannot,therefore,speculate as to who is right. I do not have any specific praise for Mcleod. It is better for me to study and then make comment.
I have just now read that Mcleods Phd was nothing but a farce. Thanks for givingyour opinion in advance.