Do you think this true about the taj Mahal?

Question

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

the

Taj 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 O

ak discovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from

then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. In his own court ch ronicle,

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

still

retains in his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahan for

surrendering the Taj building. Using captured temples and mansions, as a

burial place for

dead courtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslim rulers.

For example, Humayun,Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buried

in 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 Taj

Mahal 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's

name 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 cre ated

by

court 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 predates

Shah 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

few

samples 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.

Prof. Oak points out a number of design and architectural inconsistencies

that support the belief of the Taj Mahal being a typical Hindu temple

rather

than a mausoleum. Many rooms in the Taj ! Mahal have remained sealed

since Shah Jahan's time and are still inaccessible to the public . Oak

asserts they contain a headless statue of Lord Shiva and other objects

commonly used for worship rituals in Hindu temples Fearing political

backlash, Indira Gandhi's government t ried to have Prof. Oak's book

withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the

first edition dire consequences . There is only one way to discredit or

validate Oak's research.

Should the current government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Ma hal under

U.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate.

Answer 1

yea i do.

I didn't read it tho :(

Answer 2

Miss maashymo  what about Osmania university building build by  Nizam of hyderabad this is also hindus  building?(bellow wrote about OU Building)

and in Eygpt also one resident Building like Hindu Mandir type stucture constructed so what is your opinion on the above my subject ?

if u see Macca architecture it is like squre building there is no domb or minaret so it is not build by Muslims, plz stop poisioning and enjoy beautifull architectural one of seven wonder of the world.

plz see OU  Building..............on this site

http://7wondersofhyderabad.com/osmania-a...

The Arts College edifice is a synonym for architectural uniqueness unspoilt by the arrival of new fangled architectonics. Overlooking the landscape gardens is this majestic structure reached by two flights of wide granite stairs converging and stopping before its awe-inspiring portal that at once is a more eloquent statement on secularism than any other political manifesto. This stately granite giant, an articulate specimen of later Osman Shahi architecture, combines the archetypal characteristics of the Hindu temple styles with those of the Saracenic. Inlaid into this unique form are motifs of medieval Moslem, Arabic, Moorish and even Gothic schools of

plz lisent this beautifull song...........

http://www.esnips.com/doc/42c941da-38dd-...

Answer 3

ya  i think so to .

Answer 4

It is his own theory.  He has not given any convincing proof to substantialte his claims.

Answer 5

Cant we just save all arguments and say it was used for both, wouldnt that just save all problems

Answer 6

Well, have you been there?  It sure don't look like any other ancient hindu temple I've seen (and I've seen a LOT).  

What would be the point if there WAS a headless shiva statue in a locked room beneath it?  The Rosetta Stone is displayed in London, doesn't mean it was made there.  And do you think the Smithsonian would allow the public to wander around in their vaults at will?

And an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion?  Have you been there?  It is not, and never would have been, a living quarters of any kind.  And it's not hard to tell on those old buildings because things like drainage, cooking areas, etc are built in and visible to the naked eye.

You'll notice the building itself is not in between Algeria and Afghanistan, does this make a difference in what it's called?

Maybe the Shah Jahan legend is a little on the romantic side, but HAVE YOU BEEN THERE?  It's a muslim-style building, the tiling and decorations are beautiful and intricate and very muslimish, the whole symmetrical layout and architecture of the place scream "This is NOT a Hindu building".  I think if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck......  

I'm all for theories being proved wrong, but I think Prof Oak has dreamt up a theory and is trying his damndest to make unrelated pieces fit.  Your summary of his claims sounds pretty ludicrous.  He'll have to do a lot better than that!!!

Answer 7

Yes It was HINDU temple. plz go to this url

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 8

I have also read this theory. Although it is true that all invaders demolished hindu temples (and also hindus), I dont believe that it is a Shiv Temple which was converted into a Graveyard. Am a hindu and a shiv devotee. I have been to Taj Mahal quite a few times and I think it is beautiful. there are many symbols which can clash with each other or mythological stories of different religions which clash as well. Like we Have Lord Hanuman (monkey God) there is a monkey God in Chinese mythology as well. Not necessarily it makes Chinese Hindus does it?

So, to say that the trident on taj mahal is not a Muslim sign but hindi, is wrong. It definitely is a muslim sign. Muslim rulers when they came to India as invaders always plundered India and went back. Mughals were the ones to stay back. Akbar had stopped all the destruction of Hindu temples and during his reign, Hindus and Muslims started living like brothers... having temples and mosques in the same row even and pujaris and maulvis became frens. Shahjahan was grandson of Akbar and might have made some changes but it is hard to believe that a temple was confiscated and then whole lot of years and artisans were told to convert a shiv temple into a mausoleum.

Y not read about life of Shah jehan before coming to this theory. Whether he respected hindu culture or not. After all his grandmother was Jodha a hindu.

Some1 in her answer has written that Taj is not all that beautiful. Yes, now it might not, but when it was built it was studded with loads of precious gems which Britishers took with them. It is not half of what it initially was due to pollution and age.

I think this story is made up.