Truth about TAJ MAHAL
Crap : Taj Mahah was not built by Shahjahan. It was a Shiva temple built by maharaja of Jaipur, long before Shahjahan ruled Delhi.
Gyan : NOW READ THIS.......No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N.Oak, who believes the wholeworld has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal:The True Story, Oak says the TajMahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of LordShiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya). In the course of his research Oakdiscovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from thenMaharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. In his own court chronicle,Badshahnama,ShahJahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was takenfrom Jai SIngh for Mumtaz's burial. The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur still retainsin his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahan for surrendering the Tajbuilding. Using captured temples and mansions, as a burial place for deadcourtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslim rulers.For example, Humayun,Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buried insuch mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the name of Taj Mahal. He says theterm "Mahal" has never been used for a building in any Muslim countries fromAfghanisthan to Algeria. "The unusual explanation that the term Taj Mahalderives 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's nameto 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 saysthe love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale created by courtsycophants, blundering historians and sloppy archaeologists. Not a singleroyal 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 Rajputsof Agra city. For example, Prof. Marvin Miller of New York took a fewsamples from the riverside doorway of the Taj. Carbon dating tests revealedthat the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan.European traveler Johan Albert Mandelslo,who visited Agra in 1638 (onlyseven years after Mumtaz's death), describes the life of the cit y in hismemoirs. But he makes no reference to the Taj Mahal being built. Thewritings of Peter Mundy, an English visitor to Agra within a year ofMumtaz's death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy building well beforeShah Jahan's time.Prof. Oak points out a number of design and architectural inconsistenciesthat support the belief of the Taj Mahal being a typical Hindu temple ratherthan a mausoleum. Many rooms in the Taj ! Mahal have remained sealed sinceShah Jahan's time and are still inaccessible to the public. Oak asserts theycontain a headless statue of Lord Shiva and other objects commonly used forworship rituals in Hindu temples.Fearing political backlash, Indira Gandhi's government tried to have Prof.Oak's book withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indianpublisher of the first edition dire consequences. There is only one way todiscredit or validate Oak's research.The current government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal underU.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate.Do circulate this to all you know and let them know about this reality.....Hey please check this link ........it adds as a visual proof.........http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htmThis site http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5220< http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5220> gives the BBC's view on the Taj Mahaland briefly explains both sides of the story that maybe Shah Jahan built theTaj and maybe he didn't.
Gyan : NOW READ THIS.......No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N.Oak, who believes the wholeworld has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal:The True Story, Oak says the TajMahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of LordShiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya). In the course of his research Oakdiscovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from thenMaharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. In his own court chronicle,Badshahnama,ShahJahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was takenfrom Jai SIngh for Mumtaz's burial. The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur still retainsin his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahan for surrendering the Tajbuilding. Using captured temples and mansions, as a burial place for deadcourtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslim rulers.For example, Humayun,Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buried insuch mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the name of Taj Mahal. He says theterm "Mahal" has never been used for a building in any Muslim countries fromAfghanisthan to Algeria. "The unusual explanation that the term Taj Mahalderives 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's nameto 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 saysthe love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale created by courtsycophants, blundering historians and sloppy archaeologists. Not a singleroyal 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 Rajputsof Agra city. For example, Prof. Marvin Miller of New York took a fewsamples from the riverside doorway of the Taj. Carbon dating tests revealedthat the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan.European traveler Johan Albert Mandelslo,who visited Agra in 1638 (onlyseven years after Mumtaz's death), describes the life of the cit y in hismemoirs. But he makes no reference to the Taj Mahal being built. Thewritings of Peter Mundy, an English visitor to Agra within a year ofMumtaz's death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy building well beforeShah Jahan's time.Prof. Oak points out a number of design and architectural inconsistenciesthat support the belief of the Taj Mahal being a typical Hindu temple ratherthan a mausoleum. Many rooms in the Taj ! Mahal have remained sealed sinceShah Jahan's time and are still inaccessible to the public. Oak asserts theycontain a headless statue of Lord Shiva and other objects commonly used forworship rituals in Hindu temples.Fearing political backlash, Indira Gandhi's government tried to have Prof.Oak's book withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indianpublisher of the first edition dire consequences. There is only one way todiscredit or validate Oak's research.The current government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal underU.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate.Do circulate this to all you know and let them know about this reality.....Hey please check this link ........it adds as a visual proof.........http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htmThis site http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5220< http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5220> gives the BBC's view on the Taj Mahaland briefly explains both sides of the story that maybe Shah Jahan built theTaj and maybe he didn't.
posted by Rahul at 2:53 AM
5 comments
