W. H. McLeod

In 1986, McLeod was chosen to deliver a series of public lectures on religion, sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS).[5] In 1990 the University of London awarded him a DLit.[9] He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand in 1999.[5]

In his PhD thesis (later published by OUP), McLeod introduced the tools of higher criticism and philology to Sikh janamsakhis and concluded them to have little reliable information.[1][2][lower-alpha 1] The janamsakhis were apparently written by Nanak's followers, after about a century of his death, to reflect their perceptions of him; McLeod's objective account of Nanak's life had only three paragraphs.[3]

Simon Digby, for the Indian Economic and Social History Review, noted the work to be an important, rich, and rigorous study.[11] A review in Archiv Orientální found his work to be the product of painstaking research and responsible approach, supplying a wealth of information on Nanak.[12] Khushwant Singh, reviewing for The Journal of Asian Studies, admired McLeod's dispassionate objectivity in producing an exceptional scholarship; his exhaustive reading of primary sources and methodology of source criticism was lauded in particular.[13]

Christopher Shackle notes that McLeod's questioning the historicity of previously unchallenged "facts" created a predictable ruffle among orthodox Sikhs.[14][lower-alpha 2] However, the work had exhibited a naive reductionist understanding of the links between hagiography and historical biography, and created a dead-end for scholars not willing to align with the Khalsa-centric school.[14][16][lower-alpha 3] S.C.R. Weightman had a mixed opinion.[17][18]

J.S. Grewal took a critical view of the book.[2] While considering Guru Nanak to consider both Hindu and Muslim beliefs as wrong, and Sikhism to be distinct from both, as opposed to a synthesis, he categorized the faith as a "reworking of the sant synthesis," despite the explicit statements of Nanak delineating the start of a new panth with new traditions, and leaving this unaccounted.[2]

Tony Ballantyne commends the study for introducing "rigorous professionalism" into discourse on Sikh history.[3] Published a year before Guru Nanak's fifth birth-centenary, McLeod ran contrary to the "reverential and even hagiographical tone" of volumes that had flooded the market and his textualist methodology "transformed" the field.[3] Harjot Oberoi opines that the entire field of Sikh Studies should remain indebted to McLeod's pioneering book. A 2009 editorial of Sikh Formations noted the work to be a seminal and highly influential contribution to the field.[19] Pashaura Singh (along with Michael Hawley and Susan Prill) note that McLeod's work remains the best in expounding Nanak's teachings.[20]

This was written in 1971 but first published in 1980 by The Clarendon Press.[5][16]

Christopher Shackle, in a review for Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, found the work to be formidable in its pioneer borrowing of higher criticism from Biblical studies; it was far more sophisticated than his 1968 volume and was among the rare examples of major scholarship arising out of traditionally neglected areas.[14] Surjit Hans noted that McLeod's knowledge of the Janamsakhis, as exhibited in the work, was unrivaled.[21] So did Christine Moliner.[22]

Shackle later noted that the political turbulence in Punjab since the 80s meant that McLeod's best work failed to receive its deserved attention among scholars.[16] Pashaura Singh (along with Michael Hawley and Susan Prill) note it to provide a comprehensive analysis of the hagiographical cannon of janamsakhis.[20]

His last significant work, it was noted by Christopher Shackle to be the last word on the question of development of Sikh Identity.[16]

In 1975, McLeod published The Evolution of the Sikh Community, a collection of five essays.[5][23]

Clive Dewey was effusive in his praise of the work; even if McLeod had written nothing else, this "bravura performance" was sufficient to establish his unprecedented caliber in the field of Sikh Studies.[23] J.S. Grewal was again critical of his approach.[2][24]

There were seven essays, five of which were reprints of the ACLS lectures.[25] The compilation was published by Columbia University Press in 1989.[5]

Christopher Shackle, in a review for Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, found the volume to be a must-read for all students of Sikh History.[25] McLeod's willingness to critique his earlier stances and his fluency in recent scholarship were admired.[25] Shackle found the second essay to be the "most stimulating", where McLeod used newer evidence to convincingly reject the popularly ascribed roles of Islam in development of Sikhism.[25][26][27]

Published in 1990 by the Oxford University Press, this collated ten essays delivered during the 1986-87 Radhakrishnan Lecture at Oxford University.[28][16][29]

Christopher Shackle, in a review for Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, found the work to be quite good but poorer to his The Sikhs: History, Religion, and Society.[25] Both W. Owen Cole (reviewing for Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society) and Surjit Hans (reviewing for Studies in History) found the book to be a mandatory read for anyone having an interest in Sikh identity.[29][21] Bruce La Brack, reviewing for Journal of Asian Studies, noted that the volume re-proved why McLeod was the leading scholar of Sikh Studies in the West.[28]

Christopher Shackle, in a review for Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, found the work to cement McLeod's reputation as the preeminent scholar of Sikh Studies.[30] The detailed notes accompanying the text and McLeod's introduction detailing the historical development of the text were particularly praised.[30][31]

Christopher Shackle found the work to "ably" present the fundamental texts of Sikh tradition.[25] Pashaura Singh (along with Michael Hawley and Susan Prill) found it to be a good selection of texts.[20]

It was first published in 1995, under the editorship of McLeod.[32] A second edition appeared in 2002 by Oxford University Press.[32] A third edition was published in 2014 by Scarecrow Press alone; Louis Fenech was roped in as co-editor.

In 2006, Simon Barrett reviewed the second edition.[33] In 2009, Michael Hawley reviewed the same edition to be a useful and reliable reference for Sikh scholars, containing "clearly written" and "informative" definitions.[32] However, certain expected entries were skipped or were too short and the cross-referencing was poor; the dictionary was also in the need of an update to accommodate diaspora Sikhs.[32]

Published by Oxford University Press in 2007, it contains sixteen previously published essays.[34]

In a review for Nova Religio, George Adams noted an exhaustive examination of all important aspects of the Sikh tradition in a lucid and convincing manner.[34] Daniel Gold, reviewing for The Indian Economic & Social History Review, praised McLeod as the foremost Western historian of Sikhism, whose "careful scholarship and thoughtful analytic temper" were visible across all essays; the volume was authoritative and remained accessible to scholars as well as laymen.[35]

An omnibus volume, it was published by Oxford University Press as hardback in 1999 and reissued in 2004.[16] It comprises four works — Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion, Early Sikh Tradition: A Study of the Janamsakhis, The Evolution of the Sikh Community, and Who is a Sikh? The Problems of the Sikh Identity.[36]

Frederick M. Smith remarked in a review that despite methodological advances in the field, the omnibus was a must-read for all scholars of religion.[36] Christopher Shackle noted that the omnibus has already established itself as the standard reference work.[16]

A collation of his most significant essays, the collection was published by Oxford University Press in 2007.[37]