In his article, Islam and Science: Maulana Shihabuddin Nadwi's 'Scientific' Approach to the Quran, (SikhSpectrum, March 2008) Yoginder Sikand has eulogized Maulana Shihabuddin Nadwi of Bangalore (1931-2002). The author also laments that fellow ulema of Maulana failed to receive Maulana's 'sceintific' ideas. What Yoginder has failed to project is the fact that Maulana was not the first person to have a 'scientific' approach that in reality is very difficult to establish when Quran has so much in common with other Abrahamic religions.
An urge to dig out a 'scientific Islam' goes back a thousand years when in the words of Martin Kramer, 'Middle East was the crucible of world civilizations. One could not lay a claim to true learning if one did not know Arabic'. The hallmark of this period was al-Biruni who contributed a lot to science, mathematics, history, geography etc. Like al-Biruni one can also include the likes of al-Zahrawi, al-Haytham, and ibn Sina. I am not going to discuss here whether the knowledge of these four people was inspired by the Quran or not. But I would rather like to ask Yoginder Sikand why the aforementioned knowledge wave declined soon in the Middle East.
If Quran had anything to do with this knowledge wave then why it could not continue? Or was it the gradual development of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'I, and Hanbali sunna and rejection of itjihad, fitna and bida that made Islam totally an Arabic tribal religion - Wahabbism?
Tariq Ali in his book ‘The Clash of Fundamentalists: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity’ discusses a somewhat similar topic where he tries to find the root cause of 'the clash'. But he himself -worried about the decline- gives an apt reply to his original question by writing a 'letter to a young Muslim' in the same book. This chapter is available on line: http://tariqali.org/ExtractClashLetter.html
I want to commend Jarnail Singh for his profound and unique exposition of the first stanza of Jap (SikhSpectrum.com, March 2008). It is indeed enlightening. I would like Jarnail Singh to continue the series to cover the entire composition of Jap.
That being said, let me point out that
cupY cup n hoveI jy lwie rhw ilvqwr
is about ascetic life - - withdrawal from the world which is life- negating ideology opposite of life-affirming Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat).
Christian missionaries quote selective words, statements, and passages from the Bible to entrap the ignorant and the gullible. Now, Reverend Zekveld has gone a step further. He is doing the same by quoting a couplet out of context from Aad Gur Granth Sahib (“Miracles of the New Testament,” SikhSpectrum.com, March 2008) when he says:
My Sikh friends tell me that their gurus do not claim to be divine. They were only human. Therefore, they do not have the authority to forgive sins. We hear Guru Nanak’s admission of his own sin and his need for the Savior’s mercy: “My sins are innumerable as the water with which the seas and oceans are filled. Show mercy and extend a little pity and float me, a sinking stone” (Guru Granth Sahib 156).
Christ is the answer. He is the divine Saviour!
The Reverend has selected a couplet from a stanza of fourteen verses and distorted its meaning completely via “out of context interpretation”. According to Nanakian philosophy, Haumai (self-centeredness) is the roots cause of human misery. From individual problems to family problems to international bloody conflicts resulting in genocide and ethnic cleaning are the result of Haumai. A self-centered person (manmukh) intoxicated with egotistical pride acts according to his/her will without any regard to God/Truth. And that has been the major problem facing mankind throughout its existence.
Further, according to Guru Nanak the purpose of human life is to become a gurmukh (enlightened being, who is one with God/Truth). It is Haumai that prevents a person from becoming a gurmukh. Guru Nanakk provides the solution to solve this problem – restraining /subduing Haumai by looking at one’s own faults/shortcomings while reflecting /meditating on God/Truth. Guru Nanak advised the yogis to restrain Haumai to conquer the corrupting influence of the world (AGGS, Jap, p. 6). This is the true meaning of the couplet misinterpreted by the Reverend.
Moreover, according to Nanakian philosophy, God is loving and the protector and sustainer of all.
qUM myrw ipqw qUM hY myrw mwqw ]
qUM myrw bMDpu qUM myrw BRwqw ]
You are my father, You are my mother,
You are my relative and You are my brother.
AGGS, M 5, p 103.
Further, Nanakian philosophy rejects the notion that people are born with sins. People’s behavior/character is molded by the environment. It is the notion of innate sin that inflicts deep psychological damage and destroys the self-esteem of the person who is entrapped in this snare. Besides, no one can forgive anyone’s sins. It is the individual himself/herself who can change his/her behavior, not the magic of some supernatural power. Nanakian philosophy holds adults responsible for their actions and consequences.
The notion that only Christ or any supernatural being can forgive sins, probably tempts people, who otherwise would be normal, to become cheats, thieves, rapists, murderers, and tyrants. It is no wonder why the among the ranks of clergy one finds child molesters and misogynists.
Further, Guru Nanak rejected the Jesus myth along with the Biblical God, soul, heaven, hell and miracles.
hukmY AMdir sBu ko bwhir hukm n koie ]
All (every thing in the Cosmos) are subject to Hukam (Cosmic Law); nothing is exempt from it.
AGGS, Jap 2, p 1.
jMmxu mrxw hukmu hY BwxY AwvY jwie ]
Birth (creation) and death (destruction) is the mandate of Hukam. In other words, birth and death occur according to Hukam.
AGGS, M 1, p 472.
imil mwq ipqw ipMfu kmwieAw ]
iqin krqY lyKu ilKwieAw ]
Mother and father create a child through sexual union according to the mandate of Hukam.
AGGS, M 1, p 989.
imw kI rkqu ipqw ibdu Dwrw ]
mUuriq sUriq kir Awpwrw ]
God (Hukam) has fashioned human body with beautiful features from father's semen (sperms) and mother’s blood (eggs).
AGGS, M 1, p. 1022.
First of all let me clearly state that I am not trying to be rude or to put anyone down and I am always ready to learn but Rawel Singh’s response is not very carefully thought out in its content or argumentation. I am sorry that Rawel Singh incorrectly perceived my response as using offensive language, but this is totally mistaken. For example, labeling an assertion as “absurd” is not “foul language?” I am sorry that this is Rawel Singh’s perception but it does not reflect reality. The problem is multiplied by his unwarranted and continual assertions that I have accepted such & such when I have not. For example, I have no where said that Christians have 3 gods. Rawel Singh claims to have read & studied the Bible & yet insists that fasting is meritorious. Once again he is making the false accusation of me evading the issue. Since he has read the Bible he must be aware of Eph 2:8-9 & Titus 3:8, where it clearly denounces the efficacious or salvific value of works, which would include fasts. Furthermore, the protestant reformation was basically over the concept of grace & works (meritorious actions such as fasting etc).
Regarding incarnation of Jesus versus the Hindu incarnations, it is not a matter of me not being able to counter your fallacious conclusions but the restriction of being brief as possible as this is only feedback and not a full-fledged scholarly treatise. Furthermore if Rawel Singh has studied the respective scriptures of each tradition in detail as he claims then my succinct evaluations would make sense to him. The bottom line is that Rawel Singh has the burden of proof to supply the evidence to support his assertion as he is the one who made the original claims. He has not done this nor given scholarly documentation.
As far as his insulting insinuations regarding me studying the Bible, I would venture to say that maybe it is the case that he himself has not read the whole Bible let alone any commentaries and does not have a comprehensive understanding of the Bible or of Christianity. And maybe he does not understand that reading the scriptures as well as commentaries is a good thing. Even the SGGS has commentaries, which are used to gain better understanding. As already mentioned, I am always ready to learn but Rawel Singh needs to supply documentation. I am afraid that his quotations from the Bible (Matt 10:1, 11:1, 20:17 and Luke 9:1) are meaningless as evidence for his position and are in fact totally unrelated. If Rawel Singh feels he must WIN the argument at the expense of truth & holds his ego above truth then I have nothing further to say, except for him to reflect on his position with an unbiased & open mind.
I deeply appreciate & respect Baldev Singh’s often interesting input and insights. I hesitate to correct him as he is a very learned man indeed but it is necessary that I correct his misconceptions & faulty reasoning. I will try to do this as lovingly & kindly as I can but often the language of logic can “seem” cold and unfeeling. Respected Baldev Singh wrote that discussion or debate about a “god” that defies common sense and is an affront to universal human values serves no useful purpose and should be avoided.
I am not sure that I understand what he is saying inspite of the quotations from AGGS. Let’s put it as a syllogism.
Major Premise: a “god” that defies common sense and is an affront to universal human values serves no useful purpose as he does not exist & therefore discussion about this god should be avoided.
Minor Premise: The God of the Bible defies common sense and is an affront to universal human values
Conclusion: Therefore He does not exist & discussion about Him should be avoided.
My contention is that Baldev Singh’s minor premise is flawed leading to the wrong conclusion. But even the major premise is flawed for even the AGGS, the source of Baldev Singh’s worldview agrees that we cannot understand God fully. In fact it even says that in this sense He is unknowable and defies common sense. The major premise is actually a compound statement with 2 premises. Therefore let me split it up and look at the 2nd half of the major premise.
Major Premise: a “god” that is an affront to universal human values serves no useful purpose as he does not exist & therefore discussion about this god should be avoided.
Minor Premise: The God of the Bible is an affront to universal human values
Conclusion: Therefore He does not exist & discussion about Him should be avoided.
My first question is where do you get these universal human values & what is their source? Are they absolute & objective or subjective & relative to the culture? The Holy Bible claims that Holy God is the source of Moral absolutes, which are grounded in His infinitely holy righteous & just character. He cannot go against His character & nature. Thus both your major & minor premises are flawed, as the God of the Bible cannot be an affront to universal moral absolutes which are rooted in His own character & nature.
It is great to quote the primary source of one’s beliefs and the quotations from AGGS actually support my use of logical & rational argumentation –“discerning intellect” to discover truth. The danger in Baldev Singh’s reasoning is of inventing a god that does not defy his human intellect (common sense) thereby putting God in a box. I agree with him that generally SikhSpectrum provides a forum for rational discussion but that does not imply that we should confine God to the limits of our own finite understanding. Just because SikhSpectrum provides a forum for rational discussion does not automatically mean everyone participating is accustomed to logical argumentation and is in fact presenting sound & valid arguments free of fallacies. Nor does it automatically imply that the content presented by everyone is factual.
I want to thank SikhSpectrum for exposing the hidden treasure of Gurbani under the title: “Why Ikooo… is not Ik OanKar”. It is a marvelous research of which the Sikhs are not aware. Mr. Kalsi’s books are worth reading to grasp the concept of Ultimate Reality.
May Satguru bless him with more intuitional knowledge and good health! Thanking you again for your yeoman's service for which you are endowed upon by the Satguru.
I respect Rev Tony Zekveld’s unqualified faith in the Bible. My comments
hereunder are based on the Bible.
The New Testament Miracles: An Eye-Witness Account
The Rev has stated “Through miracles, the Lord God confirms or
authenticates His holy and authoritative Word”. This means miracles
authenticate the Bible. I intend to examine on the basis of the four
gospels and the book of Acts, which he relies on, three of the many
examples he has given.
The first is about what transpired between the two men sent by John the
Baptist. John the Baptist wanted to know if Jesus was the Messiah
prophesied in the Old Testament (OT) and Jesus quoted his miracles in
reply. The question arises “What was the Messiah to come for”? According
to Jesus it was for performing miracles. Would the Rev kindly quote where
the OT says so?
All the gospels make a concerted effort to prove that
Jesus was the Messiah, but pray some one please say how did he fulfill
what the Messiah was to do. There is another very pertinent question and
that is “Why did John the Baptist have to ask that question”? He was the
forerunner of Jesus and announced that the Messiah was to come. He
accepted Jesus as the Messiah when he baptized him. So why this doubt?
There can be no other explanation except that Jesus was not doing what the
Messiah had been expected to but only shown as performing miracles. I hope
the Rev will be gracious enough to answer these questions.
The second is about the raising of Lazarus, whom Jesus loved, from the
dead as in John 11. Here is the sequence of events mentioned therein as
per the verses quoted below:
1. Lazarus was sick.
3. His sisters sent this information to Jesus
4. Jesus says this sickness is not unto death but for the glory of God
that the son of God
might be glorified thereby.
6. Jesus heard that but stayed put there for two days.
11. Jesus says Lazarus is sleeping and he would wake him up from sleep.
14. Jesus says Lazarus is dead.
17. Lazarus had been in the grave for four days already.
35. Jesus wept.
43. Jesus cried “Lazarus come forth”.
44. Lazarus came out alive.
What does one make of this? Was Lazarus sick or dead? It is likely to be
argued that when Jesus said Lazarus was asleep, he meant that although
dead, he would be raised. But verse 1 clearly says Lazarus was sick and so
does verse 4. So what is the truth? Added to this is the statement that it
was for glorification of Jesus. This is what it seems to be; a made up
story presented as a miracle to glorify Jesus. Jesus’ weeping in verse 35
presents another enigma. Was it that Lazarus was actually dead and Jesus
could do nothing about it? As per verse 14 Jesus had stated that Lazarus
was dead so sudden grief could not have come. If he was confident he could
revive Lazarus why did he weep? The reader will probably see some
contradictions. I am only quoting the Bible.
The third is about Jesus’ resurrection, The Rev has quoted Peter saying
that they had not devised cunning fables. But who can believe Peter? He
was the one who had denied Jesus thrice. He was nowhere to be seen when
Jesus was crucified and did not know where he had been buried.
Rev has mentioned how Jesus convinced his skeptical disciple Thomas about
resurrection. This was done by putting his hand into Jesus’ wound. But
John 20:17 says about Mary Magdalene “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not;
for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say
unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and
your God.” So here Jesus wants no one to touch him because he is ascending
to God. Earlier she could not recognize the man who was presented to her
as Jesus. How can the man be Jesus when he and Mary M had close relations?
There are three questions.
First if Jesus was ascending to his Father and
wanted his disciples to be informed then how did he walk the earth?
Second if he forbade Mary M from touching him because he had not yet
ascended, how did he allow Thomas to do that? Thirdly is it possible to
believe that Mary M would not recognize Jesus?
There is another entry in the Bible which says people do not walk the
earth on resurrection. Matthew 22:30 says “For in the resurrection they
neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in
heaven.”
The gospels by Matthew, Mark and John say Jesus was crucified on the
cross. Luke does not say so in the gospel but says in Acts that he was
hanged on a tree (Acts 5:30). This is a glaring discrepancy. The question
arises what actually happened if any thing of this nature. If crucifixion
is not a certainty why talk about resurrection?
The same Bible wants us to believe that Jesus walked on the earth for days
after resurrection.
These stories are only attempts to show that Jesus was special.
The Difference Between the Lord Jesus and the Gurus.
The Rev seems to believe that simply by saying that I am divine someone
becomes divine. He quotes Guru Nanak admitting he is a sinner. So how can
he save others According to him Jesus is the divine savior. The Bible
quotes Jesus saying that virtue had gone out of him (Luke 8:46). The Bible
is also witness to the disciples forsaking Jesus (Matt 26:56). Again he
laments that he had been forsaken by God (Matt 27:46). One wonders how one
who has lost virtue is forsaken by his disciples and is finally forsaken
by God can save any one.
It should be clear that taking the New Testament as it is, it was because
Jesus had started thinking big that he was forsaken by God. It is not my
intention to compare him with the Sikh Gurus but would say that the Gurus
demonstrated humility and found honor with God.
God bless.
-Rawel Singh
Jass Singh says he has not....
-Rawel Singh
Dear Editor,
Jass Singh says he has not accepted anything about commonality between Hinduism and Christianity. That he has in fact accepted is brought out by his earlier post, thus:
1. There might indeed be commonalities between Hinduism & Christianity but that is not the same as being a "grandchild of Brahmanism."
2. Even if they represented the same thing in both religions it does not follow that one is the grandchild of the other.
He says he never said there are three gods in Christianity. I copy and post below two of his statements, in the first he talks of three gods and in the second that Jesus is the second of those.
a) Christianity is absolutely monotheistic it does teach there are 3 gods.
b) the uncreated Son of God, the 2nd person of the supreme sovereign omnipotent tri-une God.
He has mentioned two references to say that Christianity does not treat fasting as meritorious. The quotations are:
Eph 2
[8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
[9] Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Titus 3
[8] This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
The readers may please see if there is any indication of that. On the contrary I gave specific quotations from the Bible where fasts are treated meritorious. He should repudiate the issue,if he can, on the basis of those.
Harbans Lal in his article “Guru Teg Bahdur on Human Mind” (SikhSpectrum.com, March 2008) has discussed maan and its function in terms of evolutionary biology and Gurbani focusing on Guru Teg Bahadur’s hymns. However, literal and at times distortion as well as interpretation of Gurbani out of context lead to confusion resulting in misunderstanding of the subject. This is what prompted me to comment on this article.
Human brain like human body is the product of evolution traversing a long journey over innumerable evolutionary stages of life. Human brain is like a very complex and gigantic computer and scientist have so far explored only a small portion of it to explain its working. It is more powerful and more developed than the brains of other mammals and it is endowed with greater intelligence and power of reasoning /discerning intellect. It controls the physical, chemical, biological and electrical functions of the body. And it processes and interprets the information gathered by the five senses and stores the memory of life experiences. It is also the site of consciousness (awareness) and origin and refinement of thoughts (acceptance and rejection). According to Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat), there is a faculty of the brain, which distinguishes between true and false, right and wrong and good and bad. It is called Dasam Duar (dsm duAwr)in the Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS).
In the AGGS the word man (mn) is synonymous with hirda (ihrdw), rida (irdw) and dil (idl), and in English it is interpreted as mind, psyche, soul and heart. However heart (dil) is not the muscular organ that pumps blood around the body. Mind is the faculty in the brain that is the seat of thought and memory. It is the center of consciousness that generates thoughts, emotions, feelings, ideas, perceptions and stores knowledge and memories gathered through life experiences.
In order to properly understand maan or any other concept or terminology pertaining to Nanakian philosophy it is essential to understand the nature of God and purpose of life in the AGGS.
For Guru Nanak, God is Truth that is universal and eternal distinct from man-made truth. In the very beginning of his composition Jap (Japji) on the first page of AGGS he says:
Awid scu jugwid scu ]
hY BI scu nwnk hosI BI scu ]
Primordial Entity That exited during the ages, exists now, and, O Nanak, It shall be forever.
AGGS, Jap 1, p. 1.
Then immediately in the first stanza, he talks about the purpose of human life in question and answer format:
ikv sicAwrw hoeIAY ikv kUVY qutY pwil]
hukim rjweI clxw nwnk iliKAw nwil]
“How could one become a sachiara (sicAwrw) - Godlike (gurmukh) and how could one get rid of kUV (kur - ignorance and falsehood)? ” “By living in harmony with Hukam (Cosmic Law) is the answer,” says Nanak. AGGS, Jap 1, p. 1.
Truth is the opposite of kur (kUV) as it destroys ignorance, falsehood, superstition and doubt. When the yogis asked Guru Nanak:
qyrw kvxu gurU ijs kw qU cylw]
…
sbdu gurU suriq Duin cylw ]
“Who is your Guru or whose disciple are you of?” “Sabad (Truth) is my Guru and my mind (suriq), which is focused on the Sabad and comprehends it, is the disciple,” replied Guru Nanak. AGGS, M 1, pp. 942-943.
Further, according to Nanakian philosophy Haumai and five drives/instincts -- Kam (lust, sexual drive), Kroadh (anger), Lobh (covetousness, economic drive), Moh (attachment) and Ahankar (egotistical pride) control human behavior it is their corrupting influence that is responsible for human suffering/misery. That is why AGGS warns us to restrain them and use them as positive creative forces.
Closer examination of Lal’s article reveals that he is trying to repudiate life-affirming Nanakian philosophy by interpreting it in terms of life- negating Brahmanical/Vedantic philosophy. To respond to the entire article would require a lengthy rebuttal. Few examples should suffice to illustrate my point.
1. Still- less- ness of the mind has been a subject of research by psychologists and mind researchers for years. The Sikh concerns on mind’s ceaseless wanderings were discussed earlier (H. Lal, 2001).
Besides psychologists, the still-less-ness is also of a great concern to the seekers of spirituality and the faith leaders like Guru Teg Bahadure. It is because a fickle mind is a great hindrance on the path of spirituality. The goal of spirituality is gravely betrayed when the mind wanders away from the domain of the soul.
Now mind can’t be still in a healthy or consciousness individual. Mind becomes still only when consciousness is lost or when one dies. Lal is interpreting Gurbani in the terminology of yogis. Those who have studied AGGS know that Guru Nanak rejected the ideology of yogis and their lifestyle. Yogis were/are parasites in contrast to householders who sustain society.
Further, Sahaj (shj) in Nanakian philosophy does not mean tranquil or equipoise state of mind the yogis talked about, rather it means focusing on Truth while carrying out worldly duties.
nwnk siqguir ByitAY pUrI hovY jugiq ]
hsMidAw KylMidAw pYnMHidAw KwvMidAw ivcy hovY mukiq ]
O Nanak, when one meets the True Guru one finds the perfect way to Truth. One is liberated while laughing, playing, eating good food and wearing good clothes.
AGGS, M 5, p. 522.
2.
AweI pMQI sgl jmwqI min jIqY jgu jIqu
Let the highest and best path be the path suitable for all people. Conquer your mind to conquer the world.
Guru Nanak, Sri Guru Granth Sahib, P 6.
Now in this verse which Lal interprets literally and incorrectly, Guru Nanak advises the yogis:
Let universal brotherhood be your Aee Panth (highest order of yogis) and restrain you Haumai to conquer the corrupting influence of worldly temptations.
The verses, which Lal misinterprets as efforts to achieve stillness of mind, are about the restraining/subduing of Haumai and the five instincts/drives.
3. In a stark contrast to the orientation of Western science, Eastern faiths particularly Sikhism begins with a premise that the human mind is central to understanding and maneuvering the natural world and their own evolution as a whole.
Here again Lal is trying to make Nanakian philosophy part of “Eastern Faiths.” Guru Nanak did not claim anywhere in the AGGS that his thoughts belong to East. Rather his philosophy is universal. Moreover, our earth is a globe, where does East begin and West end?
4. Among the authors of the Sikh scripture, Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the ninth Sikh prophet Guru Teg Bahadure is credited with writing over a hundred verses, and a dozen hymns directly addressing the problem of human mind, and its impact on human destiny.
5.
No Sikh Guru claimed to be a prophet. Even “Guru” in AGGS is not the same as in Indian/Hindu traditions.
Like Lal’s earlier articles critiqued on the SikhSpectrum, this one is no different. Presenting Sikhism as part and parcel of Hinduism willingly or not is something that Dr. Lal should become conscious of. Always remember the fact: AGGS rejects all the essentials of Hinduism.
Regards,
-Baldev Singh
I cannot say anything....
-Jass Singh
Dear Editor,
Re: Rawel Singh & Fasts
I cannot say anything more than I have already stated, namely that:
1. Christianity is NOT the grandchild of Hinduism. Whether there are commonalities between Christianity & Brahmanism or not is not the issue. commonalities do not automatically translate to being a “grandchild” in the sense presented by Rawel Singh. It does not follow – it’s a non sequiter (fallacious reasoning).
2. Fasts are not meritorious according to biblical Christianity and neither is anything else that we can do. Hence the need for the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf. Your inference is therefore not based on sound biblical hermeneutics. You are committing the error of isogesis by reading your own meaning into the text instead of exegeting the text in its proper context & in relation to the rest of scripture as progressive revelation.
At this stage I would suggest that we respectfully agree to disagree, agreeably. I would lovingly suggest that veerji Rawel Singh do further in-depth research.
Editor - We request our readers to not criticize publishing houses since we do not have their representatives on this forum to address any allegations and concerns concerning them. Please address the contents for of an article and we will forward your concerns to the author for his or her comments.
Dear Editor,
In a private e-mail to me, the famous New Testament scholar, Craig Blomberg stated the following regarding Avalos’ book:
1. There are holes in its logic.
2. Prometheus is a press that only publishes books that attack Christianity and/or religion and are generally atheistic in nature. So, if Avalos is right then he undercuts his own work in the process, since he too is publishing with an outfit with a more blatant axe to grind and narrow restrictions on what they publish than most any Christian publishers. If one can't be supported by and/or write in support of ideological causes without being inappropriately biased, then he can't either and therefore we can dismiss his work--shall we call it The End of Hector Avalos' scholarship?
3. Biblical scholarship is alive and well and as strong as it ever has been. This book will be a barely noticed blip on the radar screen.
I read this article and appreciate the information included in it. I have a few questions about what the author has stated.
For example, Buddhism attracted many of the shudras and other varnas, who found Buddhism simple and straightforward. And then he mentions that many Brahmins convinced those people back into the varna structure, even though they were sent to the shudra category.
Then the author mentions that Brahmins were beef eaters, and became
vegetarians so as to take others into their fold. This statement needs
some clarification, because those people who you claim to be so oppressive that they killed many Buddhists, destroyed Buddhist temples, how could they become vegetarians permanently just to get others into their fold.
I have one more question regarding anti-Buddhist remarks as contained in Manusmriti and other Hindu scriptures, while at the same time portraying Buddha as avatar of Vishnu. And your saying "The existing version of the Mahabharata was written...", does that mean the Mahabharat has been "updated" time and again to accommodate the changes in society? If so, how to prove this glaring comment?
Thanks.
-Keerti
Jass Singh not being able....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Jass Singh, not being able to answer the issues raised along with specific
quotations from the Bible, has again given summary judgment. I guess no
purpose will be served by continuing the discussion and it may please be
treated as closed.
I state right at the outset that my article is an overview and not an exhaustive treatise. The topic is specifically on the possibility of miracles in view of philosophical objections and not on specific miracles in the Bible. In this respect, Rawel Singh has not addressed my paper whatsoever. In addition his response is full of factual errors as well as flawed logic and for this reason I give my refutation.
Mat 11:5 is not Jesus “boasting” or showing his ego. It is a fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies of Isa 35:5-6. Rawel Singh asks “What was the Messiah to achieve and if Jesus was the Messiah, how did he do that?” This is a very good question but is probably better left to a separate article. I would be glad to write a full article fort he next issue if the editor was to ask me.
Christian Bibles have not twisted the original Hebrew OT (Old Testament, Isaiah 7:14) and the Greek NT (Matt 1:23). See http://www.ankerberg.com/Question-of-the-Week/question-of-the-week.htm.
You state “Clearly John the Baptist did not consider someone performing miracles to be the representative of God.” This is just one example of isogesis the clever & subtle smuggling into the text what is not there. John the Baptist did not even know Jesus was performing these “Messianic” signs (miracles). That’s why Jesus gave the reply He did for these signs were prophesied of the Messiah in Isaiah 35:5ff.
If you want to really know what Jesus came for, read, John 3: 16. In fact Jesus’ mission statement is found in Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." Jesus’ ministry was not for miracles. He did not come for miracles. Miracles were signs as to His identity. They were signposts pointing to His identity as indicated in Isa 35:5ff. In fact He specifically refused to do miracles to “entertain” king Herod when Pilate sent Him to be tried. Jesus’ miracles were acts of selfless love to meet needs of ordinary people. Even on the cross, when they were taunting Him, He could have called a legion of angels to strike everyone down (Mat 26:53) but that was not His purpose for coming into the world (Mat 26:54). Instead He asks the Father to forgive them (Luke 23:34).
I have been an active participant on Sikhspectrum and have never “quietly withdrawn” from any discussion, including the one on the “resurrection of Jesus from amongst the dead.” Finally after 2000 years Rawel Singh has refuted the resurrection of Jesus??? You state that “Mary Magdalene had a close relationship with Jesus. However, when the man who had been in the tomb (after crucifixion) was later presented to her after being ‘resurrected’, she could not recognize him (John 20:14). If resurrection of Jesus were a reality Mary Magdalene could not have failed to recognize the man.” This just illustrates the dream world that you are living in. You claim to be an erudite and rigorous scholar of the Bible and yet you did not bother to read the following verses? I suggest you read John 20:16-18!!! Especially verse 18 where Mary Magdalene says
”I have seen the Lord…”
Where do you get the idea that she never recognized Him??? I hope you recognize the fallacious & flawed logic you have used to disprove the resurrection of Jesus. You have disproved nothing at all!
Rawel Singh quotes Luke 23:46 and concludes that Jesus does not subscribe to physical resurrection and that this was an idea started by Paul in 1 Cor 15:14. Both of these assertions are incorrect. Rawel Singh says that Christians believe that the soul is not separated from the body. This is correct but what he does not understand is that the definition of death is the separation of the spirit/soul (the immaterial incorporeal part of man) from the body. In Luke 23:46 unlike any other human being, Jesus Himself dismisses & separates His spirit from His body. He is not rejecting the idea of physical resurrection whatsoever. Once again Rawel Singh has not done his homework. Jesus says:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father." (John 10:17-18).
Not only can Jesus dismiss His spirit, He can unite the spirit with His resurrected body as He did 3 days later. These last two misinterpretations of Rawel Singh in John 20:14 & Luke 23:46 illustrate, the very poor level of his scholarship and truth seeking. If one is truly interested in the Truth one has to be humble and willing to learn and then adjust one’s beliefs.
Neither the Virgin birth nor the resurrection are made up stories. For the open minded unbiased & unprejudiced there is ample evidence but for anyone who has a priori made up his/her mind all the evidence in the world will not be enough. I have addressed the Virgin Birth & Resurrection of Jesus in previous issues of Sikhspectrum and will not dwell on them here.
Old Testament prophecies pointed to Jesus. In fact there are over 300 prophecies about the Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus alone. I will list just 12:
PREDICTION FULFILLED
Micah 5:2 Born in Bethlehem Matt. 2:1-6
Isaiah 7:14 Born of a virgin Luke 1:26-35
Isaiah 11:1 Lineage of Jesse Luke 3:23, 32
Psalm 72:10 Presented with gifts Matt. 2:1,11
Isaiah 35:5-6 Ministry of miracles Matt. 9:35
Zechariah 9:9 Enter Jerusalem on donkey Luke 19:35-37
Psalm 41:9 Betrayed by a friend Matt. 10:4
Zech. 11:12 Thirty paces of silver Matt 26:15
Isaiah 50:6 Smitten and spat upon Matt 26:67
Psalm 22:16 Hands and feet pierced John 20:25, 27
Psalm 34:20 No broken bones John 19:33
Isaiah 53:9 Buried in rich man's tomb Matt. 27:57-60
Peter W. Stoner, Robert C. Newman, Peter W. Stoner, and Robert C. Newman, applied statistical methods to the data of the prophecies of the Messiah and wrote the book entitled "Science Speaks, Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible." http://www.geocities.com/stonerdon/science_speaks.html. They took only eight of the more than 300 prophecies fulfilled by Christ and determined the odds of one person fulfilling just those eight. The results were astounding! They calculated the odds at 1 in 10 to the 17th power or 1 in 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000. Dr. Stoner calculated that if you spread out that many silver dollars, it would cover the entire state of Texas, two feet deep! Now what do you think the odds are if say, one of those silver dollars was painted red, the likelihood for a blind folded person to walk out on that pile of silver dollars and pick up the red one - on the first try? Certainly if one did that, it would be by definition, a miracle! The Bible is more than that. (http://thefundidriveby.blogspot.com/2007/12/315-miraculous-old-testament-prophecies.html). The probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled is 1 in 10 to the 157th power, which is practically zero (of being fulfilled by one person by mere chance) & tantamount to an impossibility.
Rawel Singh is of the opinion that Jesus’ followers have embellished the gospel accounts with miracles. Rawel Singh selects Mat 4:3-4 & Mat 8:4 and without any evidence whatsoever conjectures and asserts that “these verses represent the real Jesus,” and that “He should be accepted for what he is, for his teachings and not because of miracles,” and that “such verses have been inserted in the New Testament later by lesser mortals in order to let their preceptor be seen superior to the earlier ones.” Once again he is guilty of bad hermeneutics (interpretation) and isogesis (reading his own meaning into the text) as well as having zero historical evidence for later insertions. I have addressed the historicity of the New Testament in a previous paper on Sikhspectrum (http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112006/ja.htm ) and will not repeat myself here.
Rawel Singh quotes John 5:19 and asserts that the first part of this statement shows that Jesus is not equal to God, but the second has been inserted. Rawel Singh does not understand the nature of the incarnation and the kenosis or emptying out of the independent use of His Divine powers (Phil 2:6-9). As for the assertion that the latter part of John 5:19 was inserted, he has no evidence & once again he is making unwarranted assumptions based on his preconceptions and not internal or external evidence. Notice that Jesus starts His statement with the words, “Truly Truly” to emphasize the importance of what follows. Jesus is saying that His union with the Father in His divine nature is absolute and they are doing the same things; He never acts independently of the Father. He lays down His identity with God and in Him we see God. The mind of Jesus is the mind of God; the words of Jesus are the words of God; the actions of Jesus are the actions of God.
Rawel Singh quotes Mat 27:46 in which Jesus is actually quoting verse 1 of the Messianic Psalm 22, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.” It is the only time that Jesus did not address God as Father. During the 3 hours when it became completely dark, the sinless God-man was separated from God the Father as He became sin and bore the wrath of the justice of the Holiness of God the Father on behalf of mankind. Rawel Singh is correct that Jesus was not forsaken for He was raised the 3rd day; His sinless sacrifice was accepted and satisfied the justice of God who could now shower His Grace on us sinners and offer salvation. For a full exposition see “The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on Matthew 24-28” by John MacArthur.
Rawel Singh then expounds his interpretation of Jesus healing and resurrecting the dead as allegorical and representing a moral revival. This is a gross error of hermeneutics (interpretation) and totally unwarranted and therefore must be dismissed.
Rawel Singh’s then talks about the SGGS & miracles and also about guru Tegh Bahadur in respect to not performing a miracle. This is totally irrelevant to refuting my arguments for the philosophical possibility of miracles and need not be addressed.
If one is a true truth seeker of the Truth then one must lay aside one’s preconceptions biases and prejudices and even the most cherished beliefs and examine the evidence with an open mind and be willing to adjust one’s beliefs accordingly. My prayer is that the readers have these sterling qualities and the courage to change when confronted with the Truth.
Regards,
-Jass Singh
There are a number of Sikh....
-Gurpreet Singh Kahlon
Dear Editor,
There are a number of Sikh Heritage related items to be auctioned in the coming weeks including a rare Portrait of the 8th Sikh Guru at Christies, by informing the Sikh comunity hopefully the Heritage can be saved.
A rare early portrait of the 8th Sikh Guru will be auctioned at one of Londons most prestigious auction houses, Christies, on April 11th.
Guru Har Krishan was the 8th Sikh Guru after succeding his father Guru Har Rai who died in 1661.
Whilst Guruji stayed in Delhi, a smallpox epidemic erupted which resulted in many deaths.
By Guruji's blessing, the lake at Bangla Sahib provided a cure for thousands.
Exposing himself to his many devotees he too died of Smallpox.
Thus he unselfishly, without the thought of danger to himself, served many people.
Gurdwara Bangla Sahib was constructed in Gurujis memory. This is where he stayed during his visit to Delhi.
This was originally the palace of Raja Jai Singh, who was a strong Sikh and a devotee of the Guru.
Object of Sikh Heritage have been realising impressive prices.
The most remarkable example was that of the marble bust of Maharaja Duleep Singh realising 1.7 Million GBP
For more information please visit - http://www.christies.com
Jass Singh's response to my article is full of contradictions.
Jass says John the Baptist did not even know that Jesus was performing
miracles. The Bible says otherwise in Matthew 11:
[2] Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two
of his disciples,
[3] And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for
another?
So, John the Baptist on seeing Jesus performing miracles asks him "are you
the the Messiah are shall we look for another"? This leaves absolutely no
doubt why the question was asked of Jesus, and that is because John the
Baptist did not think the Messiah was to perform miracles.
Jass Singh has quoted John 3:16 and Luke 19:10 to show what Jesus came
for. No, we are talking about what the Old Testament says the Messiah was
to come for. The New Testament is at pains to show Jesus was the Messiah
but does not say what he was to do and how Jesus did it. Here is a hint;
the NT does try to show something but it does not work. Jass Singh wants
to write a separate article on this and I hope the Editor would facilitate
that. I suggest it has to be based on the relevant OT prophecy and its
fulfillment in the NT.
Next, Jass says the Christian Bibles have not twisted the translation of the
original Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14. I copy and paste the two versions
and Matthew 1:23 below:
Hebrew Bible in English -Isaiah 7
[14] Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young
woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
King James Version -Isaiah 7
[14] Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
King James Version - Matthew 1:23
[23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son,
and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God
with us.
Here is an interesting observation: None of them says Jesus. I am sure an effort
will be made to derive Jesus' name from this.
Jass Singh also says he did not withdraw from the discussion on
Resurrection. He may please refer to the feedback section on SikhSpectrum
Iissue 27.
Jass Singh has objected to my saying that Mary M did not recognize the
resurrected Jesus and quotes John 20:16-18. But he has conveniently
avoided reference to the earlier verses 14 and 15 which I copy and paste hereunder:
[14] And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus
standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
[15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou?
She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have
borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him
away.
Such contradictions always come forth in made-up stories. Mary M not only
did not recognize Jesus but also thought he was the gardener. How did she know
he was the gardener? The only conclusion one can draw from this is that it
was the gardener who had been placed in the tomb and was shown to Mary M
and she obviously could not have recognized him as Jesus.
I order to keep the discussion focused and I suggest we postpone responding to
Jass Singh’s remarks on the New Testament having been tampered with, until after
the above issues are resolved.
I commend Rupinderpal Singh Dhillon for his genuine concern to stem the tide of the vanishing
mother tongue of a great civilization before our very eyes. If there was
any doubt the recent UNESCO report says it all whereby Punjabi language will be
extinct in the next 50 years.
May be all is not lost thanks to the efforts/alarm bells sounded by some
of its more aware rank and file individual Punjabi writers and
intellectuals in both Punjabs and the diaspora. Hopefully not too
little and hopefully not too late the Punjab Government is doing some
thing. (Kuldeep Nayar's follow up in Punjab refers).
On an important note we all know there are many dialects commonly used in
Punjabi. Principal amongst them being:
Majhi,Doabi,Malwai,Powadhi,Pothohahi,Lahndi and Multani. Standard Punjabi
uses the Majhi variant. My suggestion is to use the already accepted
standard Majhi for crossbreeding of modern vocabulary where required as
the Punjabi University does back home for consistency and to avoid reinventing the
wheel all over again.
Thanks and good luck to the author of this article.
I am deeply appreciative of the writings of Muthu Mohan ji about SGGS. His
topics and articles are highly touching, comtemplative and encouraging to
any follower of Sikhism. An effort should be made to make public his
writings in Gurmukhi and Hindi so that a vast majority of our country can know about sikhism, SGGS and Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj.
What Guru Nanak mentioned in SGGS, science will take thousands of years to
prove. I have come across various recent inventions which only
partly corroborate to the Bani written by the Great Master. There is
need to work towards this field.
My sincere gratutude and hearthy thanks to Mr. Mohan's tiring efforts
towards this goal.
I just chanced upon this article and would like to applaud and thank the author for the pertinent and holistic approach to the rants of an egocentric person like McLeod.
My name is Matija, and I am from Croatia. The reason I am writing you is to clear up some misunderstanding that I came across while reading about the Sikh religion.
The question is about the Sikh belief in life after death. Upon this day I read that Sikhs believe in reincarnation, afterlife etc., but
upon reading an article on your site I see that this is not the case.
So kindly tell me what Nanakian philosophy really teaches, what happens when we die?
In your article I read that Guru Nanak theorized the concept of evolution, rejected reincarnation, and on the other hand did believe in God!
So now I am very confused!
I hope that you will answer my question.
Guru Nanak rejected earlier religious traditions, so his concept of God is radically different. I will publish a comprehensive article covering every aspect of Nanakian philosophy on the SikhSpectrum in the very near future. In the meantime I suggest you read two articles that will be helpful in your understanding of Sikhism (Nanakian Philosophy). These are:
1. My response to Reverend Zekveld titled, "A Comparison Between Two Creedos: Christian and Sikh", SikhSpectrum.com, May 2006.
2. "Was Guru Nanak a Hindu or a Muslim?", SikhSpectrum.com, November 2007.
I agree with everything that has been written by Mr. Baldev Singhji, but I still have a few questions: What happens to soul after death? What happens to people who have led good lives and those who have led sinful lives? How can people who have led bad lives escape in life from suffering as it often happens.
Bad people often live happily and good people suffer- so what is the cause of it and where is the justification for this? I would like to know if there are lines referring to this anywhere in G.G.S.
To me mudh mudh joona vich paina could be a reference to atmik death rather than literal death again and again. I would also like to know if there is anywhere in G.G.S. the fact that man was placed on this earth at the same time as the universe was created?
I have had a debate on this with two very learned people who seem to believe that man was created right at the beginning of the creation unlike science which talks of evolution. I will be obliged if you could attempt to answer some of these questions for me.
Thank you and looking forward to your reply.
-Perminder Kaur
For an ongoing discussion between....
-Editor
For an ongoing discussion between Jass Singh and Rawel Singh on the topic of Miracles please visit the following link. This web page will be updated as we continue to receive replies from these two authors.
I do not agree with Dr. Baldev Singh on his views on reincarnation in Sikhism. I request the reader to visit the following URL to read my views on this topic.
It seems that Perminder Kaur may not have read my two articles: My response to Reverend Zekveld titled, "A Comparison Between Two Creedos: Christian and Sikh", SikhSpectrum.com, May 2006 and "Was Guru Nanak a Hindu or a Muslim?", SikhSpectrum.com, November 2007 (links provided in my reply to Matija from Croatia). The answers to her question are found in these articles. Nevertheless, let me emphasize the following points for the benefit of Preminder Kaur and other SikhSpectrum readers.
1. The evolution of human species occurred rather very lately in the evolution of life that started hundreds of million years ago. The existence of Homo sapiens is not more than 250,000 years old.
2. Guru Nanak’s concept of God is radically different from that of other religions. In the very beginning of his composition Japji on the first page of Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS), Guru Nanak equates God with Eternal Truth.
3. The primary purpose of life is to realize God/Truth; those who don’t, waste their life. What could be greater punishment or harm that one inflicts on oneself being unable to accomplish the primary goal of life? Further, it is emphasized again and again that this is the only chance to realize God.
ikv sicAwrw hoeIAY ikv kUVY qutY pwil]
hukim rjweI clxw nwnk iliKAw nwil]
“How could one become a sachiara - Godlike (gurmukh, God-centered being) and get rid of falsehood (kUV, kur)?” “By living in harmony with Hukam (Cosmic Law) is the answer,” says Nanak.
AGGS, Jap 1, p. 1.
It is knowledge of Truth that destroys ignorance, falsehood, superstition and prejudice. When the yogis asked Guru Nanak:
qyrw kvxu gurU ijs kw qU cylw]
…
sbdu gurU suriq Duin cylw ]
“Who is your Guru or whose disciple are you of?” “Sabad is the Guru and my mind, which is focused on the Sabad and comprehends it, is the disciple,” replied Guru Nanak.
AGGS, M 1, pp. 942-943.
Sabad in AGGS means God, Truth/Knowledge, Guru’s teachings. So it is the understanding of God or Truth/Knowledge of that is needed for the understanding of Hukam (Cosmic Law). The one, who understands the Hukam and conducts himself/herself, accordingly, is a sachiara (gurmukh).
4. God is both visible as the Cosmos and invisible as the Cosmic Law (Hukam).
5. God is Ajuni, without birth and death (does not incarnate).
6. Future does not mean life after death and past does not mean previous life. For example, from today to my birthday is my past and from today to my death is my future. In Gurbani past, preset and future constitutes the span of life.
In Gurbani “soul” means God who is Eternal, so what is there that transmigrates? Guru Nanak has explained this point in the following passage.
dyhI mwtI bolY pauxu]
buJu ry igAwnI mUAw hY kauxu]
mUeI suriq bwdu AhMkwru]
Eh n mUAw jo dyKxhwru]
The body is made of earth (various elements) and it is the breath (air) that keeps it alive. O wise one, then tell me who died? The body (elements) and the air it breathed are still here. It is consciousness that died along with disputes caused by Haumai (self-centeredness), but the One Who takes care of all does not die.
AGGS, M 1, p. 152.
Awqm mih rwmu rwm mih Awqmu]
God is in atma and atma is in God.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1153.
Moreover, Gurbani makes it very clear that the concepts of sin and virtue, hell and heaven, and karma and transmigration are man-made, not the creation of God/Hukam.
kQw khwxI bydI AwxI pwpu puMnu bIcwru ]
dy dy lyxw lY LyY dyxw nrik surig Avqwr ]
auqm miDm jwqI ijnsI Birm BvY sMswru ]
It is the teachings of Vedas, which has created the concepts of sin and virtue, hell and heaven, and karma and transmigration: One reaps the reward in the next life for the deeds performed in this life and goes to hell or heaven according to one’s deeds. The Vedas have also created the fallacy of inequality of caste and gender for the world.
AGGS, M 2, p. 1243.
Finally, I will publish a comprehensive article covering the entire range of Nanakian philosophy on the SikhSpectrum in the near future. Therefore, I request the readers to hold back their questions until then, as it would be much better and easier to understand the discussion of a single issue in light of the entire comprehensive presentation.
This article is an excellent and a very well written. It is a fact that the surname "Kaur" and "Singh" is disappearing from the names of Sikh children. I
think this is not the fault of the child, it is the fault of parents who
don't know its importance. We should take further step to make
people aware of the meaning as well as history of religion. This article
gives strength to think further and to take initiative for the same.
Regards,
- Dr. Kanwalpreet Kaur
This post relates to....
-Tejpal Singh
Dear Editor,
This post relates to the question of "re-incarnation". I feel that question of re-incarnation needs to be elaborated before it's answered. Since the point regarding re-incarnation mainly revolves around one central thought whether we will be born human again or not?
The second sub-part deals with the thought that based on our karma we may born in lower life-forms and then after moving through the 84 lac life forms, we will again get this chance to be born as human being.
The third sub-part deals with the soul.
a. What is soul as per Gurmat?
b. Where does soul come from and enter into the human body?
c. Where does the soul go after this body dies/decays?
d. Do animals have souls ?
And there could many more such questions, which should be introspected from the Gurmat perspective.
Since its soul, which becomes a subject matter for the topic of
re-incarnation, the Gurmat perspective of the soul must be understood
thoroughly. I feel that as per Gurmat this human life is gift of lord and cannot be obtained as a result of good/bad deeds.
Since humans have been provided with a discerning intellect, they have power to discriminate among good/bad and choose accordingly, and this makes us distinctively different from animals. This gives way to good/bad karma and also the aware to detach from karma(becoming Nihkaram)
I would quote one reference from Gurbani, which tell us that this life is gift of God and is bestowed upon us by the almighty.
jayhaa cheeree likhi-aa tayhaa hukam kamahi
ghalay aavahi naankaa saday uthee jaahi. ||1||
Sarang Mehala 2, Ang 1239-9
When God sends us to life(human and others) we come to this world, and when
God recalls us back(as per hukam).
In that case, it means that we may be born as humans again if we could not unite with God in the current life (only if God wishes so). The human birth is based on the will of God and not deeds to humans only.
I was only a baby in 1984, but Amitav has made the events more real to me
than any television documentary about this event.
I was on that bus, I had tea with the Bawas in Hari's house, and the women
of the group saved me from the mob.
It just makes me feel like doing something more meaningful than sitting at
a computer all day.
Regards
-Samuel
Gandhi Under Cross-Examination....
-Pieter Friedrich, USA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW BOOK SHREDS FABRICATIONS OF INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ICON
Gandhi Under Cross-Examination By G. B. Singh and Tim Watson
Publication Date: Apr. 14, 2008
Sovereign Star, 2008, $14
NEW YORK, Apr. 7, 2008 - In “Gandhi Under Cross-Examination” (Sovereign Star, 2008), renowned Gandhi scholar G. B. Singh and his colleague, Tim Watson examine the very roots of Mahatma Gandhi’s position as an icon of the Civil Rights movement.
In 1893, Gandhi claims to have been thrown out from a first-class train compartment at Pietermaritzburg, South Africa for refusing to give up his seat to a white man. This racial incident allegedly galvanized him to fight against British colonialism. In 1895, however, Gandhi promoted segregation in Durban, South Africa. The local post office had two doors - one for blacks and Indians and another for whites. Calling it an "invidious distinction," Gandhi successfully campaigned for a third door for Indian use only.
G. B. Singh, who also authored “Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity” (Prometheus, 2004), said: “My previous book proved Gandhi's own writings demonstrate his vehement racism against black Africans. This new book goes a step further, debunking the propaganda behind the favorite icon of modern American and Indian politicians.”
“Gandhi Under Cross-Examination” challenges the historical accuracy behind Gandhi’s pivotal story of racial discrimination aboard a South African train, exposing his divergent accounts of the incident. By placing Gandhi on the witness stand and weaving courtroom drama into the analytical text, the authors ultimately conclude the famous incident has no basis in fact. There are thousands of books about Gandhi, but this is one of the few willing to place his claims under the lens of historical scrutiny.
“We’re confident this book will emphasize our dedication to publishing thought-provoking but essential works," said Pieter Friedrich, Sovereign Star's editor-in-chief. “With so many world leaders, from Obama to the Dalai Lama, crediting Gandhi as their inspiration, the world deserves to see a critical examination of the Gandhi story.”
Col. G. B. Singh (Ret.) served in the U.S. Army. He is a professional student of Indian politics, world religions, and the life and teachings of Gandhi. He lives in Tennessee, USA.
Dr. Tim Watson teaches philosophy and communications and hosts a weekly radio show. He is currently involved in the production of a feature film about the hidden aspects of Gandhi. He lives in Toronto, Canada.
Interviews with the authors and review copies of the book are available upon request.
Media Inquiries:
Pieter Friedrich
Sovereign Star Publishing, Inc.
Phone: 530-210-4040
E-mail: pieter@sovstar.com
It is a beautiful article that motivates me to further study this topic. I am interested to know the role of traders / merchants in ancient India in promoting Devdasi system or prostitution or sex trade/workers for their sexual satisfaction. Your response will be highly appreciated.
Regards
-Dilip K Chakrabarty
Tejpal Singh has raised....
-Rawel Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
Tejpal Singh has raised some issues in his letter to editor (SikhSpectrum, Feedback on Issue No. 31). I would like to direct his attention to two articles that I had written earlier.
The article, "The Miracles of the New Testament", by
Rev. Tony Zekveld, cites Sikh Gurus to be human and that the Gurus did not
claim themselves to be divine. Indeed they were human, but extraordinary,
and they preached to humans, but what they preached was, and still is,
divine.
I disagree with Jesus being the only son of God. We all are the
children of the Creator and equal before the Creator. As for Nanak seeking
divine help, Nanak refers to humanity here, as Nanak is talking about
humanity how people have turned so corrupt and full of vices, that they
need to turn to the Divine for being wholesome again.
Teachings of the
Sikh Gurus are examplary and with facts of life before us all, and not
imaginary. The good Reverand Zekveld needs to understand Sikhism is more a
philosophy and a way of life rather than a religion. And yes, I find it
kind of queer that it is the Son of God who is given priority over His
Father for seeking pardon in the Christian belief. And I do not agree with
the "original sin" as talked about in the Holy Bible. We can not be
sinners just because we are born. Life is a gift from God, it can not be a
sin.
I read the e-Symposium dedicated to Giani Dit Singh ji that includes articles written by Colonel G.B. Singh and Dr. Baldev Singh.
Their article are praiseworthy. I salute them for their research.
But I am surprised to read the article of Devinder Singh Chahal.
Dr. Chahal uses the name Swami Daya Anand (SDA).
The correct name is written in the Satyartha Prakhash and it is "Swami Dayanand Saraswati".
I agree that no one is perfect and every one wears a mask. In fact every one
has to wear a mask in order to do some task. Gandhi might not be so good from
his heart but he did great tasks. I agree that he hated untouchables,
but he realized that this is not good for the country and he tried to remove
untouchability. And this is also a great thing. I don't think that it is
necessary to give "meaningless" truth. He deserve the title of "Mahatma"
not because he was good from heart or divine, He deserve the title of
"Mahatma" because he did a great task.
In his article, Islam and Science....
![](javascript:openWin("http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022008/images/c1.jpg"))