Let's debate issues rather than people indeed. KA as a public personality has become an issue within the Panth. By extension we can speak of his Missionary support groups. If you think you are sounding open-minded, it's rather hollow and hypocritical in my estimation. Since, KA's behaviors and utterances are for the public record, they thus become part of the debate. Correct.
Once KA became a public figure, everything he utters are subject to debate. He forfeits any chance to claim libel or slander unless he can prove it in a court of law. Even if it is innuendo and hearsay. Slander in this context is a legal term, not as part of informal useage. .
noun Law
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation : he is suing the TV network for slander. Compare with libel .
a false and malicious spoken statement : I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders.
verb [ trans. ]
make false and damaging statements about (someone) : they were accused of slandering the head of state.
Note in the examples that individuals are targets of slander, not organizations or states. This is relevant to a later issue I raise.
What is being said about him isn't innuendo and hearsay from any vicious gossip mag in the false way you allege against his detractors, Panthic Weekly and the Tapoban Singhs.
Randip ji has expressed an opinion. An opinion can be neither true nor false.
I reiterate, if anyone is guilty of actionable slander it is you randip singh.
Explain. How is it even possible for Randip ji to slander an organization - especially a news organization like Panthic Weely? Facts reported by news organizations are routinely challenged by individuals and groups. The editorial positions of these organizations are their opinions, and as such have no special privileges or protections against being criticized. To slander is to damage the reputation of an individual, possibly leading to loss of status or income. Neither Panthic Weekly nor Tapoban Singhs are vulnerable to slander because they are organizations.
You throw wild accusations which are irresponsible and without verification. Sant Mat is an
organization affiliated with Radhasoami.
Is it OK to use innuendo and hearsay to criticize Sant Mat or Radhasoami, insofar as they could be in league with anti-Panthic forces?
You are deliberately inserting charged accusations to smear one group into another in a propagandistic way. Take care to use accuracy in your allegations. It is not a debate to undermine the public confidence in these legal entities, AKJ, Panthic Weekly, Tapoban, DDT, and Akal Takht Sahib Ji.
I asked about this once before and did not get an answer from forum members. Panthic Weekly just like other news organizations and media is legally incorporated for tax. liabiilty, etc. I cannot seem to find out whether it is officially and/or legally associated with any religious organization and have searched its web site several times. Is it incorporated as a religious organization? If so how? Since Panthic Weekly has an op/ed section can we make the inference that it welcomes debate and disagreement with its point of view?
And you call yourself a historian. Are you this loose with all your facts? You broadly and without basis accuse Panthicly affiliated organizations
What do you mean by Panthicly affiliated? What do you mean by Panth, with a capital "P"? The panth is not a legal organization -- it is a group of people who share religious views, like-minded Sikhs -- with moral leadership offered to the people who are on the panth by more than one organization and individual. Akal Takt provides spiritual and religious leadership to the panth.
Explain how AKJ, Panthic Weekly, Tapoban, DDT are legally affiliated with the panth? Obviously some parts of the panth are affiliated with those groups. But these groups do not lead or define the panth in its entirety. There are Sikhs who have never even heard of AKJ or Tapoban.
as the equivalent of
Radhasoami and
Wahabi Islam? Get some credibility please. Stop brandishing dramatic opinion as fact.
Why should Randip ji be excluded? It doesn't seem fair.
Your "scholarship" doesn't impress anyone.
