skybehindme
New member
As this topic doesn't belong to the History of Jat's, I am posting it here.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]TAJ MAHAL: MUSLIM MAUSOLEUM OR HINDU TEMPLE?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](16 September 2006) * Many excerpts from the BBC H2G2 website.[/FONT]
No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N. Oak, who believes the whole world has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal: The True Story, Oak says theTaj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya) . In the course of his research Oak discovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. In his own court chronicle,Badshahnama,Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was taken from Jai SIngh for Mumtaz's burial . The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur stillretains in his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahan forsurrendering the Taj building. Using captured temples and mansions, as a burial place fordead courtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslim rulers.
For example, Humayun,Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buriedin such mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the name of Taj Mahal. He says the term "Mahal" has never been used for a building in any Muslim countries from Afghanisthan to Algeria. "The unusual explanation that the term TajMahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogical in atleast two respects.
Firstly, her name was never Mumtaz Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani," he writes. Secondly, one cannot omit the first three letters 'Mum' from a woman'sname to derive the remainder as the name for the building."Taj Mahal, he claims, is a corrupt version of Tejo Mahalaya, or Lord Shiva's Palace. Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale createdbycourt sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy archaeologists . Not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the love story.
Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal predatesShah Jahan's era, and was a temple dedicated to Shiva, worshipped by Rajputs of Agra city . For example, Prof. Marvin Miller of New York took a fewsamples from the riverside doorway of the Taj. Carbon dating tests revealed that the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan. European traveler Johan Albert Mandelslo,who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven years after Mumtaz's death), describes the life of the cit y in his memoirs. But he makes no reference to the Taj Mahal being built. The writings of Peter Mundy, an English visitor to Agra within a year of Mumtaz's death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy building well before Shah Jahan's time.
For more information please reffer to the following link http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]TAJ MAHAL: MUSLIM MAUSOLEUM OR HINDU TEMPLE?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](16 September 2006) * Many excerpts from the BBC H2G2 website.[/FONT]
No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N. Oak, who believes the whole world has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal: The True Story, Oak says theTaj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya) . In the course of his research Oak discovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. In his own court chronicle,Badshahnama,Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was taken from Jai SIngh for Mumtaz's burial . The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur stillretains in his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahan forsurrendering the Taj building. Using captured temples and mansions, as a burial place fordead courtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslim rulers.
For example, Humayun,Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buriedin such mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the name of Taj Mahal. He says the term "Mahal" has never been used for a building in any Muslim countries from Afghanisthan to Algeria. "The unusual explanation that the term TajMahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogical in atleast two respects.
Firstly, her name was never Mumtaz Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani," he writes. Secondly, one cannot omit the first three letters 'Mum' from a woman'sname to derive the remainder as the name for the building."Taj Mahal, he claims, is a corrupt version of Tejo Mahalaya, or Lord Shiva's Palace. Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale createdbycourt sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy archaeologists . Not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the love story.
Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal predatesShah Jahan's era, and was a temple dedicated to Shiva, worshipped by Rajputs of Agra city . For example, Prof. Marvin Miller of New York took a fewsamples from the riverside doorway of the Taj. Carbon dating tests revealed that the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan. European traveler Johan Albert Mandelslo,who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven years after Mumtaz's death), describes the life of the cit y in his memoirs. But he makes no reference to the Taj Mahal being built. The writings of Peter Mundy, an English visitor to Agra within a year of Mumtaz's death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy building well before Shah Jahan's time.
For more information please reffer to the following link http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html