PDA

View Full Version : Taj Mahal or Tejo Mahalaya, truth ???



yajuvender
March 20th, 2003, 12:06 PM
The Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal built the Taj Mahal. It was built in 22 years (1631 to 1653) by 20,000 artisans brought to India from all over the world. Many people believe Ustad Isa of Iran designed it. This is what your guide probably told you if you ever visited the Taj Mahal. This is the same story I read in my history book as a student in India.
No one has ever challenged it except Professor 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 Mahal's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya).
In the course of his research, Oak discovered the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. Shah Jahan then remodeled the palace into his wife's memorial. 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 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 begin with the name Taj Mahal. He says this term does not occur in any Moghul court papers or chronicles, even after ShahJahan's time. The term Mahal has never been used for a building in any of the Muslim countries, from Afghanistan to Algeria. The unusual explanation that the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal is illogical in at least 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 the Shiva's Palace.
Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale created court sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy rchaeologists. 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 palace dedicated to Shiva worshipped by the Rajputs of Agra city. For example, Professor 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 city 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 long well before Shah Jahan's time. 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 Shiva and other objects commonly used for worship rituals in Hindu temples. Fearing political backlash, Indira Gandhi's government tried to have Oak's book withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the first edition with dire consequences.
There is only one way to discredit or validate Oak's research. The current Indian government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal under UN supervision, and let international experts investigate.
Do Circulate this to all your friends and let them know about this reality...
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/godbole_taj1.html
http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/miscarticles/sjdnbtt.html
http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/aditichaturvedi/dpp9.html

sanjaychhikara
March 20th, 2003, 01:36 PM
Excellent information!!!

kharub
March 21st, 2003, 10:22 PM
Brilliant piece of truth , we should fight for our religious symbols taken over by the Muslim Invaders.

For we belong to the oldest religion in the world and we sholuld not let other people gain fame by capturing symbols of identity.

VJ Kharub

amitdahiya
March 24th, 2003, 06:04 PM
Bhai Yaju are you serious.I thinkthis whole business of denying the Mughalsany role in any originalcontribution toIndian culture is a serious departurefromintellectualhonesty.Cmon guys lets get a little serious O.K. It is an utterly muslim peice of architecture with a softness of line that evolved in muslim creativity after the advent of Islam In India and its 'interaction' with Hinduism.

rsdalal
March 24th, 2003, 08:20 PM
If you research on mosques around the world, you will be surprised that how many of them were built on after detroying other religious places like Churches/Temples etc. This religion does not just allows this but encourage you to do this(Two birds with one stone). It is very public that many big mosques in east europe were churches before...

itsnavin
March 25th, 2003, 05:17 PM
Hello VJ Kharab
Of course this is a brilliant piece of information but don't you think that you are acting like fundamentalist. Do you support what's going on at Ayodhya site? Atleast I don't! If like this we are one or the other day proving that a particular temple/mosque belonged to a particular religion/sect then we are going to destroy our heritage. Of course every country has a history, so does India! In the Moughals dynasty, I believe that they built mosque where they found Temples but are you educating/proposing the same for the current rulers to build temples etc at Mosque/temples sites. Then what difference does it make between the moughal period and ours. I think we should avoid this hindu fundamentalist approach.
One more point, if we think that we can make India a pure Hindu country, this is just not possible. All the four religions are now an integrated part of India.

I appreciate the study done by Mr. Oak but I am sure nobody can claim it to Hindu piece of architecture. This is a typical Muslim architecture.

amitdahiya
April 1st, 2003, 06:42 PM
Ranvir Singh Dalal (Mar 24, 2003 09:50 a.m.):
If you research on mosques around the world, you will be surprised that how many of them were built on after detroying other religious places like Churches/Temples etc. This religion does not just allows this but encourage you to do this(Two birds with one stone). It is very public that many big mosques in east europe were churches before...

amitdahiya
April 1st, 2003, 06:46 PM
Dear Ranvir
These monuments are as much a symbol of our passive indifference and weakness in the face of islamic onslaught as their barbarity in the wake of military success. Remove these symbols of our weakness and stupidity and cowardice and we may yet live to see ouselves repeat the errors of our past ways without these mnemonics to remind us and caution us aginst our inherent weakness.

Amit Dahiya


Amit Dahiya (Delhi) (Apr 01, 2003 08:12 a.m.):

Ranvir Singh Dalal (Mar 24, 2003 09:50 a.m.):
If you research on mosques around the world, you will be surprised that how many of them were built on after detroying other religious places like Churches/Temples etc. This religion does not just allows this but encourage you to do this(Two birds with one stone). It is very public that many big mosques in east europe were churches before...