Re: Origins of Taj Mahal

Religions > Atheism > Re: Origins of Taj Mahal

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Dr. Jai Maharaj"
Date:	25 Apr 2005 03:58:31 PM
Object:	Re: Origins of Taj Mahal

THE TRUE STORY OF TAJ MAHAL
Forwarded message from "Mohan Sevak" <mohan_sevak@yahoo.com>
[ Subject: THE TRUE STORY OF TAJ MAHAL
[ From: "Mohan Sevak" <mohan_sevak@yahoo.com>
[ Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004
THE TRUE STORY OF TAJ MAHAL
Romantic story of Taj Mahal may be fiction
The Mogul 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. No one has ever challenged it except
Professor P.N.Oak, who believes that the whole world has been duped in
his book Taj Mahal.
The True Story,
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
Shiv (then known as Tejo Mahalaya).
In the course of his research, Oak discovered that Shiv 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 Shah Jahan'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 Shiv's
Palace. Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy
tale created by court sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy
archaeologists.
Not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the love
story.
(According to another different account Mumtaz was a Hindu married
lady, whose real Hindu name I am forgetting now. Once Shah Jahan happened
to see her and was wonder struck by the beauty of Hindu lady. He then
prisoned the Hindu husband of Hindu lady for about two years and
forcing him to divorce his Hindu wife. Hindu husband kept refusing of
divorcing his wife. After 2 years, Shah Jahan killed the Hindu husband of
Hindu lady and then married the widowed Hindu lady by force. After
marriage he named the Hindu lady Mumtaz.)
Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal
predates Shah Jahan's era, and was a temple palace dedicated to Shiv
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 Al! Bert Man delslo, 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 not accessible to the public. Oak asserts they contain a
headless statue of Shiv 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. I would
like to add that near the rivers only big Shiv temples are there.
Also...the designs are like BEL leaves and also they say that water falls
at some place ...and that can be the place where the shivling would
have been. Also people tell that actual grave of mumtazmahal is in
Rajasthan somewhere.
WE should do something...
For those who do not think this is a true article go through these:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5220
http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/6485.html
http://www.humnri.com/Humex/Submission/bhat/bhat69.asp
http://www.gurgaonharyana.com/taj.htm

The Tajmahal is Tejomahalay
Probably there is no one who has been duped at least once
in a lifetime. But can the whole world be duped? This may
seem impossible. But in the matter of Indian and world
history the world can be duped in many respects for
hundreds of years and still continues to be duped. The
world famous Tajmahal is a glaring instance. For all the
time, money and energy that people over the world spend
in visiting the Tajmahal, they are dished out of
concoction. Contrary to what visitors are made to believe
the Taj Mahal is not a Islamic mausoleum but an ancient
Shiv Temple known as Tejo Mahalaya which the 5th
generation Moghul Emperor Shahjahan commandeered from the
then Maharaja of Jaipur. The Tajmahal, should therefore,
be viewed as a temple palace and not as a tomb. That
makes a vast difference. You miss the details of its
size, grandeur, majesty and beauty when you take it to be
a mere tomb. When told that you are visiting a temple
palace you wont fail to notice its annexes, ruined
defensive walls, hillocks, moats, cascades, fountains,
majestic garden, hundreds of rooms archived verandahs,
terraces, multi stored towers, secret sealed chambers,
guest rooms, stables, the trident (Trishul) pinnacle on
the dome and the sacred, esoteric Hindu letter "OM"
carved on the exterior of the wall of the sanctum
sanctorum now occupied by the cenotaphs. For detailed
proof of this breath-taking discovery, you may read the
well-known historian Shri. P. N. Oak's celebrated book
titled "Tajmahal: The True Story". But let us place
before you, for the time being an exhaustive summary of
the massive evidence ranging over hundred points:
1. The term Tajmahal itself never occurs in any mogul
court paper or chronicle even in Aurangzeb's time. The
attempt to explain it away as Taj-i-mahal is therefore,
ridiculous.
2. The ending "Mahal"is never Muslim because in none of
the Muslim countries around the world from Afghanistan to
Algeria is there a building known as "Mahal".
3. The unusual explanation of the term Tajmahal derives
from Mumtaz Mahal, who is buried in it, is illogical in
at least two respects viz., firstly her name was never
Mumtaj Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani and secondly one cannot
omit the first three letters "Mum" from a woman's name to
derive the remainder as the name of the building.
4. Since the lady's name was Mumtaz (ending with 'Z') the
name of the building derived from her should have been
Taz Mahal, if at all, and not Taj (spelled with a 'J').
5. Several European visitors of Shahjahan's time allude
to the building as Taj-e-Mahal is almost the correct
tradition, age old Sanskrit name Tej-o-Mahalaya,
signifying a Shiv temple. Contrarily Shahjahan and
Aurangzeb scrupulously avoid using the Sanskrit term and
call it just a holy grave.
6. The tomb should be understood to signify NOT A
BUILDING but only the grave or cenotaph inside it. This
would help people to realize that all dead Muslim
courtiers and royalty including Humayun, Akbar, Mumtaz,
Etmad-ud-Daula and Safdarjang have been buried in capture
Hindu mansions and temples.
7. Moreover, if the Taj is believed to be a burial place,
how can the term Mahal, i.e., mansion apply to it?
8. Since the term Taj Mahal does not occur in mogul
courts it is absurd to search for any mogul explanation
for it. Both its components namely, 'Taj' and' Mahal' are
of Sanskrit origin.
Another article on the same topic:

http://www.telugupeople.com/discussion/article.asp?id=10761
I hope the anti Oak crowd will see the truth now. if
nothing else, why most of the rooms and the like are kept
sealed, as if they are hiding a secret?
But India is a majority Hindu nation, now controlled by
Hindu nationalists whose b�te noire is the Muslim
invaders who built the Taj. As Hindu nationalists never
fail to remind, the Moguls were marauding conquerors who
brutalized the bodies, psyches, and monuments of Hindu
India. But they also gave the country many of its most
beautiful buildings and gardens, which lie almost
casually studded throughout Delhi and Agra and nearby
Fatepur Sikri, the fabulous abandoned city built by
Akbar.
Some ardent Hindu nationalists ignore this; others deny
it altogether. In our office library I recently unearthed
a small volume called the ''The Taj Mahal Is a Temple
Palace,'' by one P. N. Oak in 1974, and billed as ''An
Epoch-Making Discovery Which Has Proved All Histories and
Historians Wrong.'' He argues that the Taj was ''built by
a powerful Rajput king in pre-Muslim times,'' constructed
''of the Hindus, for the Hindus and by the Hindus.''
Obviously, this is not a story of Tejo Mahalaya. What NYT
wrote above is nonsense. Certainly I can't find a good
reason why polemics should be dragged into a column of
travelogue. What nationalists or any body else have got
to do with Shah Jahan? The point we are looking here is
about whether Taj has been a rehash of a Shiv temple as
claimed. Nationalists or not, the fact what Shah Jahan
has done or not done cannot be undone. And admittedly,
this claim is made as long ago as 1974 (exactly 30 yrs
ago). More over, if the author found the book of PN Oak
and is a regular visitor to Taj Mahal, he should have
supported or refuted the visual points made by Oak
instead of going off (wrongly so) on the religious
polemics. Facts are presented here for the benefit of
other members. May be some of you, who have visited Taj,
may look into these aspects:
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm
fantastic set of photos on Taj Mahal which tends to prove
the claims of the Oak given below. The site also lists
some online articles on the issue.
2http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html)
Until the lions have their own historians, the history of
hunt will always glorify the hunter.
The Indians have been most unfortunate that India has
been under foreign and minority rule since 712 A.D. until
15.8.1947 and this fact we must accept first then only we
can think realistically. Unfortunately things got even
worse because of daydreamer J. L. Nehru AND HIS POLICY OF
APPEASEMENT OF MINORIRTY.
The apartheid may have ended in South Africa but not in
Bharat so unless there is one law for all the citizens a
country cannot be strong so this must be our first
priority in having similar common laws and Uniform Civil
Code.
It may be worth for people to read the book by PN Oak
"Taj Mahal the Hindu temple". He had written that it was
investigated by NY Archaeologist by carbon dating and
govt. did not allow till that date for full-scale
investigation.
It was built by R�japut king as was MANDIR called
TAJOMAHALA but was converted by Mogul king into
Mausoleum.
The original things are just skin deep; and if
superficial tiles are removed it may so some things!
Mumtaz died in south and could not be buried in Agra.
Also the tomb cannot be above ground level.
P. N.Oak also argues that Taj Mahal faces to East like
Shiv Mandir.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/819614.cms?headline=Book~documents~'Islamic~holocaust'~in~India
Sh. P. N. Oak has written a book that Taj Mahal is a Hindu
Temple. This book has been published by Voice of India,
2 - Ansari Rd. Delhi, Bharat (India).
The Taj Mahal is Tejomahalay, A Hindu Temple, By P.N.Oak
Bharat celebrated the 350th anniversary of the fraud by
Shah Jahan and other Muslims on Hindu population of
Bharat.
End of forwarded message from "Mohan Sevak" <mohan_sevak@yahoo.com>
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
In article <250420051102488942%ajanta@null.void>,
Nobody posted:

<http://www.vigilonline.com/reference/columns/vicharamala_view.asp?col_id=254>:

An Open Letter to Dr Romila Thapar
BY KRISHEN KAK
VICHARAMALA no.89
Saturday, April 23, 2005

April 22, 2005

Dr Romila Thapar
Kluge Chair in Countries and Cultures of the South
The John W. Kluge Center
at the Library of Congress
Washington, DC

Madam,

You are widely acknowledged as the doyenne of Indian professional
historians (as distinguished from those you once wittily labelled "pulp
historians") and I write to you in regard to a matter of some national
concern. I am not aware whether you are still at JNU or at the Kluge
Center - neither website lists you - so I'm sending this as an open
letter through the contact form at
http://www.loc.gov/loc/kluge/kluge-contact.html .

Most of us grew up and were educated to believe that the Taj Mahal was
a ground-up de novo construction by the Mughal emperor Shahjahan. We -
and the whole world - are told that it is his monument to his great
love for his wife Mumtaz Mahal. Couples from the world over come to be
photographed before this monument - it is all so romantic, especially
in the moonlight.

That there is another view in regard to whether Shahjahan really had
this bill-and-coo relationship with Mumtaz Mahal, and that in fact he
womanized, committed adultery and incest (KS Lal, "The Mughal Harem",
New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1988) may, of course, be dismissed as a
Hindu bias since it is expressed by one who is often cited by pulp
historians.

More serious was a claim made by one PN Oak that the Taj Mahal was a
pre-existing Hindu structure. We all learnt to scoff at PN Oak -
without needing to read him - because our history books taught us
differently. We might have continued to scoff, had the Uttar Pradesh
Sunni Waqf Board recently not decided to lay claim to the property. Not
to be left behind, the UP Shia Wakf Board put in its claim, and the
Anjuman-e-Mohommedia followed suit. The All India Muslim Personal Law
Board supports the Sunni claim, as does the secular Samajwadi Party's
government in Uttar Pradesh (with its minister Mohd Azam Khan wanting
to become the trustee of the monument - The Pioneer, Mar 17 & 21,
2005), and our secular national government rightly sees "nothing
objectionable" in the claim being made ("Whose Taj Mahal?", editorial,
The Pioneer, Mar 23, 2005).

At this point, allow me to establish my secular credentials by
denouncing the Hindu claims to Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura as grossly
objectionable.

I still haven't read PN Oak's claim - the book is not readily
available. According to the BBC, "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" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5220 ), but you
can for yourself see his main arguments at
http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_inside.asp?cat_name=why&cid=389&sid=6
4 which also asks "why did the illustrious House of Tatas, in 1905,
name Mumbai's first world class hotel, Taj Mahal. You cannot attract
guests by naming your hotel after a mausoleum. Friends and foes could
not give me an answer till someone told me that Taj Mahal meant Crown
Residence. Yeah, that was a good name to give a hotel."

In view of the Muslim claim - and its secular and government support -
to the Taj Mahal as wakf property, a clear explication of the
historical position by our professional historians becomes essential.

Three inter-related issues raise fundamental questions about the
historical authenticity of what we've been taught about the Taj Mahal:

1) Was or was not "the use of captured temples and mansions as a
burial place for dead courtiers and royalty... a common practice among
Muslim rulers. For example, Hamayun, Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and
Safdarjung are all buried in such mansions"? Has the term "mahal" ever
been used for a mausoleum in any Islamic country? Did or did not the
European traveller Johan Albert Mandelslo, who visited Agra in 1638
(only seven years after Mumtaz's death), describe the life of the city
in his memoirs, but make no reference to the Taj Mahal being built? (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5220 )? Or, for that matter, even a
single European traveller at that time (
http://home.freeuk.com/tajmahal/17eurrec.htm )? (I make special mention
of Europeans, because we may safely assume Hindu accounts are
prejudiced ones).

2) Does or does not the Badshahnama, Shahjahan's court chronicle
written by Shahjahan's own chronicler the mullah Abdul Hamid Lahori,
state that in Agra "the palace of Raja Mansingh, which was owned by his
grandson Raja Jaisingh, was selected as the place for the burial of the
queen Mumtaz" ( http://www.stephen-knapp.com/badshahnama.htm )? If it
does, what is the reason for disbelieving it?

Does or does not likewise the Shahjahannama mention that Shahjahan
acquired the property of Raja Jai Singh for the burial, compensating
him with another piece of property with a building on it? Did or did
not the Encyclopaedia Britannica entries on the Taj from 1875 onwards
until 1910 suggest a pleasure palace as the earlier construction? Does
or does not Syed Muhammad Latif's 1896 book on Agra mention that the
building "was originally a palace of Raja Man Singh but now it was the
property of his grandson Raja Jai Singh. His Majesty (Shahjahan) gave
the Raja a lofty edifice from the Khalsa estate in exchange of this
building and the spot was used for the mausoleum of the deceased
empress"? ( http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=231036 ).
If any of this is so, what is the reason for disbelieving it? (Again, I
make special mention of Muslim accounts and of the Britannica, because
we may safely assume Hindu accounts are prejudiced ones).

3) Are or are not many rooms in the Taj Mahal sealed, and still
inaccessible to the public? What is in these rooms?

The BBC states that "the only way to really validate or discredit
Oak's research is to open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal, and allow
international experts to investigate."

However, why should we want "international experts" when we have a Dr
Thapar. I'm sure patriotic Hindusthanis will settle for these rooms
being opened before three Supreme Court judges and you (as representing
the professional historian community) with a videographic panchnama
being made in all your presence of the interior architecture of these
rooms and all their contents. And as Subhash Kak (no kin) suggests,
"Radiocarbon and thermoluminescence tests can help establish the dates
of the buildings in the complex." However, since Subhash Kak is a pulp
historian, perhaps we may dismiss his suggestion as a Hindu bias.

There is a larger point. You know that we were all taught the Aryan
Invasion Theory, and it is professional historians led by you who've
clarified the unlikelihhood of an invasion. You know we've all been
taught to acknowledge Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru as being
responsible for the British leaving India, but it seems that Netaji
played a more significant role (Anuj Dhar, "Back from Dead: Inside the
Subhas Bose Mystery", New Delhi: Manas Publications, 2005 - however, in
fairness, Dhar may not be a professional historian). Now the UP Sunni
Wakf Board raises a demand that brings up again evidence apparently
sufficiently strong to seriously question whether the so-called Taj
Mahal, whatever the original building may have been, was in fact built
by Shahjahan.

None of this evidence is new, but I've not been able to find anywhere
that it has been properly and professionally rebutted. In the absence
of such rebuttal, I'm sure you'll appreciate the danger allowing it to
pass unchallenged will pose to our secular polity.

May I, therefore, as a concerned citizen, request you, as the
country's most senior professional historian, kindly to make a public
statement to settle this controversy, as well as lead a petition to our
President to have all rooms in the Taj Mahal opened before you and
three Supreme Court judges to settle, once and for all, the truth about
this national treasure.

I look forward to receiving through the Kluge Center (that'll have my
email address) at least an acknowledgement from you.

Yours respectfully,

Krishen Kak
=====

User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj"
Title: Re: Origins of Taj Mahal	26 Apr 2005 04:41:02 PM

In article <1114550577.184106.86940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Trollbuster" <trollbuster123@yahoo.com> posted:

If any new visitor to this forum is confused as to why this topic has
been posted in a forum for screewriting, . . .

Then consider this: there is no subject about which a
screenplay can't be written, a movie not made. Several
movies have been made about the Taj Mahal. In fact
millions upon millions of people derive their knowledge
of the world from TV and films -- and movies must portray
the facts as accurately as possible. Misinformation about
Hindu principles has been posted in these newsgroups; it
must be corrected.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:

THE TRUE STORY OF TAJ MAHAL

Forwarded message from "Mohan Sevak" <mohan_sevak@yahoo.com>

[ Subject: THE TRUE STORY OF TAJ MAHAL
[ From: "Mohan Sevak" <mohan_sevak@yahoo.com>
[ Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004

THE TRUE STORY OF TAJ MAHAL

Romantic story of Taj Mahal may be fiction

The Mogul 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. No one has ever challenged it except
Professor P.N.Oak, who believes that the whole world has been duped in
his book Taj Mahal.

The True Story,

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
Shiv (then known as Tejo Mahalaya).

In the course of his research, Oak discovered that Shiv 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 Shah Jahan'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 Shiv's
Palace. Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy
tale created by court sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy
archaeologists.

Not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the love
story.

(According to another different account Mumtaz was a Hindu married
lady, whose real Hindu name I am forgetting now. Once Shah Jahan happened
to see her and was wonder struck by the beauty of Hindu lady. He then
prisoned the Hindu husband of Hindu lady for about two years and
forcing him to divorce his Hindu wife. Hindu husband kept refusing of
divorcing his wife. After 2 years, Shah Jahan killed the Hindu husband of
Hindu lady and then married the widowed Hindu lady by force. After
marriage he named the Hindu lady Mumtaz.)

Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal
predates Shah Jahan's era, and was a temple palace dedicated to Shiv
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 Al! Bert Man delslo, 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 not accessible to the public. Oak asserts they contain a
headless statue of Shiv 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. I would
like to add that near the rivers only big Shiv temples are there.
Also...the designs are like BEL leaves and also they say that water falls
at some place ...and that can be the place where the shivling would
have been. Also people tell that actual grave of mumtazmahal is in
Rajasthan somewhere.

WE should do something...

For those who do not think this is a true article go through these:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5220
http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/6485.html
http://www.humnri.com/Humex/Submission/bhat/bhat69.asp

http://www.gurgaonharyana.com/taj.htm

The Tajmahal is Tejomahalay

Probably there is no one who has been duped at least once
in a lifetime. But can the whole world be duped? This may
seem impossible. But in the matter of Indian and world
history the world can be duped in many respects for
hundreds of years and still continues to be duped. The
world famous Tajmahal is a glaring instance. For all the
time, money and energy that people over the world spend
in visiting the Tajmahal, they are dished out of
concoction. Contrary to what visitors are made to believe
the Taj Mahal is not a Islamic mausoleum but an ancient
Shiv Temple known as Tejo Mahalaya which the 5th
generation Moghul Emperor Shahjahan commandeered from the
then Maharaja of Jaipur. The Tajmahal, should therefore,
be viewed as a temple palace and not as a tomb. That
makes a vast difference. You miss the details of its
size, grandeur, majesty and beauty when you take it to be
a mere tomb. When told that you are visiting a temple
palace you wont fail to notice its annexes, ruined
defensive walls, hillocks, moats, cascades, fountains,
majestic garden, hundreds of rooms archived verandahs,
terraces, multi stored towers, secret sealed chambers,
guest rooms, stables, the trident (Trishul) pinnacle on
the dome and the sacred, esoteric Hindu letter "OM"
carved on the exterior of the wall of the sanctum
sanctorum now occupied by the cenotaphs. For detailed
proof of this breath-taking discovery, you may read the
well-known historian Shri. P. N. Oak's celebrated book
titled "Tajmahal: The True Story". But let us place
before you, for the time being an exhaustive summary of
the massive evidence ranging over hundred points:

1. The term Tajmahal itself never occurs in any mogul
court paper or chronicle even in Aurangzeb's time. The
attempt to explain it away as Taj-i-mahal is therefore,
ridiculous.

2. The ending "Mahal"is never Muslim because in none of
the Muslim countries around the world from Afghanistan to
Algeria is there a building known as "Mahal".

3. The unusual explanation of the term Tajmahal derives
from Mumtaz Mahal, who is buried in it, is illogical in
at least two respects viz., firstly her name was never
Mumtaj Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani and secondly one cannot
omit the first three letters "Mum" from a woman's name to
derive the remainder as the name of the building.

4. Since the lady's name was Mumtaz (ending with 'Z') the
name of the building derived from her should have been
Taz Mahal, if at all, and not Taj (spelled with a 'J').

5. Several European visitors of Shahjahan's time allude
to the building as Taj-e-Mahal is almost the correct
tradition, age old Sanskrit name Tej-o-Mahalaya,
signifying a Shiv temple. Contrarily Shahjahan and
Aurangzeb scrupulously avoid using the Sanskrit term and
call it just a holy grave.

6. The tomb should be understood to signify NOT A
BUILDING but only the grave or cenotaph inside it. This
would help people to realize that all dead Muslim
courtiers and royalty including Humayun, Akbar, Mumtaz,
Etmad-ud-Daula and Safdarjang have been buried in capture
Hindu mansions and temples.

7. Moreover, if the Taj is believed to be a burial place,
how can the term Mahal, i.e., mansion apply to it?

8. Since the term Taj Mahal does not occur in mogul
courts it is absurd to search for any mogul explanation
for it. Both its components namely, 'Taj' and' Mahal' are
of Sanskrit origin.

Another article on the same topic:

http://www.telugupeople.com/discussion/article.asp?id=10761

I hope the anti Oak crowd will see the truth now. if
nothing else, why most of the rooms and the like are kept
sealed, as if they are hiding a secret?

But India is a majority Hindu nation, now controlled by
Hindu nationalists whose b�te noire is the Muslim
invaders who built the Taj. As Hindu nationalists never
fail to remind, the Moguls were marauding conquerors who
brutalized the bodies, psyches, and monuments of Hindu
India. But they also gave the country many of its most
beautiful buildings and gardens, which lie almost
casually studded throughout Delhi and Agra and nearby
Fatepur Sikri, the fabulous abandoned city built by
Akbar.

Some ardent Hindu nationalists ignore this; others deny
it altogether. In our office library I recently unearthed
a small volume called the ''The Taj Mahal Is a Temple
Palace,'' by one P. N. Oak in 1974, and billed as ''An
Epoch-Making Discovery Which Has Proved All Histories and
Historians Wrong.'' He argues that the Taj was ''built by
a powerful Rajput king in pre-Muslim times,'' constructed
''of the Hindus, for the Hindus and by the Hindus.''
Obviously, this is not a story of Tejo Mahalaya. What NYT
wrote above is nonsense. Certainly I can't find a good
reason why polemics should be dragged into a column of
travelogue. What nationalists or any body else have got
to do with Shah Jahan? The point we are looking here is
about whether Taj has been a rehash of a Shiv temple as
claimed. Nationalists or not, the fact what Shah Jahan
has done or not done cannot be undone. And admittedly,
this claim is made as long ago as 1974 (exactly 30 yrs
ago). More over, if the author found the book of PN Oak
and is a regular visitor to Taj Mahal, he should have
supported or refuted the visual points made by Oak
instead of going off (wrongly so) on the religious
polemics. Facts are presented here for the benefit of
other members. May be some of you, who have visited Taj,
may look into these aspects:

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm

fantastic set of photos on Taj Mahal which tends to prove
the claims of the Oak given below. The site also lists
some online articles on the issue.
2http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html)

Until the lions have their own historians, the history of
hunt will always glorify the hunter.

The Indians have been most unfortunate that India has
been under foreign and minority rule since 712 A.D. until
15.8.1947 and this fact we must accept first then only we
can think realistically. Unfortunately things got even
worse because of daydreamer J. L. Nehru AND HIS POLICY OF
APPEASEMENT OF MINORIRTY.

The apartheid may have ended in South Africa but not in
Bharat so unless there is one law for all the citizens a
country cannot be strong so this must be our first
priority in having similar common laws and Uniform Civil
Code.

It may be worth for people to read the book by PN Oak
"Taj Mahal the Hindu temple". He had written that it was
investigated by NY Archaeologist by carbon dating and
govt. did not allow till that date for full-scale
investigation.

It was built by R�japut king as was MANDIR called
TAJOMAHALA but was converted by Mogul king into
Mausoleum.

The original things are just skin deep; and if
superficial tiles are removed it may so some things!
Mumtaz died in south and could not be buried in Agra.
Also the tomb cannot be above ground level.

P. N.Oak also argues that Taj Mahal faces to East like
Shiv Mandir.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/819614.cms?headline=Book~documents~'Islamic~holocaust'~in~India

Sh. P. N. Oak has written a book that Taj Mahal is a Hindu
Temple. This book has been published by Voice of India,
2 - Ansari Rd. Delhi, Bharat (India).

The Taj Mahal is Tejomahalay, A Hindu Temple, By P.N.Oak

Bharat celebrated the 350th anniversary of the fraud by
Shah Jahan and other Muslims on Hindu population of
Bharat.

End of forwarded message from "Mohan Sevak" <mohan_sevak@yahoo.com>

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

In article <250420051102488942%ajanta@null.void>,
Nobody posted:

User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj"
Title: Re: Origins of Taj Mahal	25 Apr 2005 03:59:50 PM

TAJ MAHAL WAS A SHIV TEMPLE: VINAY KATIYAR
Forwarded message from "aadi anaadi" <aadi_anaadi@hotmail.com>
[ Subject: taj mahal was a shiva temple: vinay katiyar
[ From: "aadi anaadi" <aadi_anaadi@hotmail.com>
[ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005
excellent move.
so long,
aadi anaadi
Taj Mahal was a Shiv temple: Vinay Katiyar
Press Trust of India
The Hindustan Times
Lukhnow, March 23, 2005 at 9:57 p.m. IST
Seeking to rake up a controversy, BJP leader Vinay
Katiyar on Wednesday claimed the Taj Mahal in Agra was
actually a Shiv temple built by Raja Jai Singh and and
named 'Tejo Mai Mahal'.
"The Taj Mahal was, in fact, a Shiv temple and was built
by Raja Jai Singh. Its name was Tejo Mai Mahal (shining
palace)," Katiyar said in Lukhnow.
"This fact finds mention in the book 'Badshahnama' by
Abdul Hamid Lahori, a close associate of Mughal emperor
Shah Jahan," he claimed.
Samajwadi Party leader and UP Parliamentary Affairs
Minister Azam Khan's statement that the Taj Mahal was a
graveyard 'is only a half truth', Katiyar said and added
"it is no doubt a graveyard as Shah Jahan brought back
the body of his wife Mumtaz Mahal from Burahanpur
village, where she had died, and buried it in the temple
after removing the Shivlinga".
"It (the Taj) actually belongs to us (Hindus) and we will
do everything possible to reclaim it," Katiyar said
adding a 'Shankar Sena' (Shiv army) would soon be formed
and 'Damrus' (Shiv's drum) distributed among the people
to create awareness on this issue.
His statement came close on the heels of claims of
ownership of the Taj by the Shia community and Uttar
Pradesh Sunni Waqf board, with the support of UP minister
for Parliamentary Affairs Azam Khan to the 17th century
architectural marvel.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1292044,000900010004.htm
End of forwarded message from "aadi anaadi" <aadi_anaadi@hotmail.com>
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
.

User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj"
Title: Re: Origins of Taj Mahal - Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple	25 Apr 2005 04:07:43 PM

I posted the following nearly ten years ago:
THE TAJ MAHAL IS TEJOMAHALAY
A Hindu Temple

By P. N. Oak

Probably there is no one who has been duped at least once
in a lifetime. But can the whole world can be duped?
This may seem impossible. But in the matter of indian
and world history the world can be duped in many respects
for hundreds of years and still continues to be duped.
The world famous Tajmahal is a glaring instance. For all
the time, money and energy that people over the world
spend in visiting the Tajmahal, they are dished out of
concoction. Contrary to what visitors are made to
believe the Tajmahal is not a Islamic mausoleum but an
ancient Shiv Temple known as Tejo-Mahalaya which the 5th
generation moghul emperor Shahjahan commandeered from the
then Maharaja of Jaipur. The Tajmahal, should therefore,
be viewed as a temple palace and not as a tomb. That
makes a vast difference. You miss the details of its
size, grandeur, majesty and beauty when you take it to be
a mere tomb. When told that you are visiting a temple
palace you wont fail to notice its annexes, ruined
defensive walls, hillocks, moats, cascades, fountains,
majestic garden, hundreds of rooms archaded verendahs,
terraces, multi-storied towers, secret sealed chambers,
guest rooms, stables, the trident (Trishul) pinnacle on
the dome and the sacred, esoteric Hindu letter "OM"
carved on the exterior of the wall of the sanctum
sanctorum now occupied by the centotaphs. For detailed
proof of this breath taking discovery,you may read the
well known historian Shri. P. N. Oak's celebrated book
titled " Tajmahal: The True Story". But let us place
before you, for the time being an exhaustive summary of
the massive evidence ranging over hundred points:
NAME
1. The term Tajmahal itself never occurs in any mogul
court paper or chronicle even in Aurangzeb's time. The
attempt to explain it away as Taj-i-mahal is therefore,
ridiculous.
2. The ending "Mahal"is never muslim because in none of
the muslim countries around the world from Afghanistan to
Algeria is there a building known as "Mahal".
3. The unusual explanation of the term Tajmahal derives
from Mumtaz Mahal, who is buried in it, is illogical in
at least two respects viz., firstly her name was never
Mumtaj Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani and secondly one cannot
omit the first three letters "Mum" from a woman's name to
derive the remainder as the name of the building.
4. Since the lady's name was Mumtaz (ending with 'Z') the
name of the building derived from her should have been
Taz-Mahal, if at all, and not Taj (spelled with a 'J').
5. Several European visitors of Shahjahan's time allude
to the building as Taj-e-Mahal is almost the correct
tradition, age old Sanskrit name Tej-o-Mahalaya,
signifying a Shiv temple. Contrarily Shahjahan and
Aurangzeb scrupulously avoid using the Sanskrit term and
call it just a holy grave.
6. The tomb should be understood to signify NOT A
BUILDING but only the grave or centotaph inside it. This
would help people to realize that all dead muslim
courtiers and royalty including Humayun, Akbar, Mumtaz,
Etmad-ud-Daula and Safdarjang have been buried in capture
Hindu mansions and temples.
7. Moreover, if the Taj is believed to be a burial place,
how can the term Mahal, i.e., mansion apply to it?
8. Since the term Taj Mahal does not occur in mogul
courts it is absurd to search for any mogul explanation
for it. Both its components namely, 'Taj' and' Mahal'
are of Sanskrit origin.
TEMPLE TRADITION
9. The term Taj Mahal is a corrupt form of the sanskrit
term Tejo-Mahalay signifying a Shiv Temple. Agreshwar
Mahadev i.e., The Lord of Agra was consecrated in it.
10. The tradition of removing the shoes before climbing
the marble platform originates from pre-Shahjahan times
when the Taj was a Shiv Temple. Had the Taj originated as
a tomb, shoes need not have to be removed because shoes
are a necessity in a cemetery.
11.Visitors may notice that the base slab of the
centotaph is the marble basement in plain white while its
superstructure and the other three centotaphs on the two
floors are covered with inlaid creeper designs. This
indicates that the marble pedestal of the Shiv idol is
still in place and Mumtaz's centotaphs are fake.
12. The pitchers carved inside the upper border of the
marble lattice plus those mounted on it number 08 -- a
number sacred in Hindu Temple tradition.
13. There are persons who are connected with the repair
and the maintenance of the Taj who have seen the ancient
sacred Shiv Linga and other idols sealed in the thick
walls and in chambers in the secret, sealed red-stone
stories below the marble basement. The Archaeological
Survey of India is keeping discretely, politely and
diplomatically silent about it to the point of
dereliction of its own duty to probe into hidden
historical evidence.
14. In India there are 12 Jyotirlingas i.e., the
outstanding Shiv Temples. The Tejomahalaya alias The
Tajmahal appears to be one of them known as Nagnatheshwar
since its parapet is girdled with Naga, i.e., Cobra
figures. Ever since Shahjahan's capture of it the sacred
temple has lost its Hindudom.
15. The famous Hindu treatise on architecture titled
Vishwakarma Vastushastra mentions the 'Tej-Linga' amongst
the Shivalingas i.e., the stone emblems of Lord Shiv, the
Hindu deity. Such a Tej Linga was consecrated in the Taj
Mahal, hence the term Taj Mahal alias Tejo Mahalaya.
16. Agra city, in which the Taj Mahal is located, is an
ancient centre of Shiv worship. Its orthodox residents
have through ages continued the tradition of worshipping
at five Shiv shrines before taking the last meal every
night especially during the month of Shravan. During the
last few centuries the residents of Agra had to be
content with worshipping at only four prominent Shiv
temples viz., Balkeshwar, Prithvinath, Manakameshwar and
Rajarajeshwar. They had lost track of the fifth Shiv
deity which their forefathers worshipped. Apparently the
fifth was Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheshwar i.e., The Lord
Great God of Agra, The Deity of the King of Cobras,
consecrated in the Tejomahalay alias Tajmahal.
17. The people who dominate the Agra region are Jats.
Their name of Shiv is Tejaji. The Jat special issue of
The Illustrated Weekly of India (June 28, 1971) mentions
that the Jats have the Teja Mandirs i.e., Teja Temples.
This is because Teja-Linga is among the several names of
the Shiv Lingas. From this it is apparent that the Taj-
Mahal is Tejo-Mahalaya, The Great Abode of Tej.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
18. Shahjahan's own court chronicle, the Badshahnama,
admits (page 403, vol 1) that a grand mansion of unique
splendor, capped with a dome (Imaarat-a-Alishan wa
Gumbaze) was taken from the Jaipur Maharaja Jaisigh for
Mumtaz's burial, and the building was known as Raja
Mansingh's palace.
19. The plaque put the archealogy department outside the
Tajmahal describes the edifice as a mausoleum built by
Shahjahan for his wife Mumtaz Mahal, over 22 years from
1631 to 1653. That plaque is a specimen of historical
bungling. Firstly, the plaque sites no authority for its
claim. Secondly the lady's name was Mumtaz-ul-Zamani and
not Mumtazmahal. Thirdly, the period of 22 years is
taken from some mumbo-jumbo noting by an unreliable
French visitor Tavernier, to the exclusion of all muslim
versions, which is an absurdity.
20. Prince Aurangzeb's letter to his father, emperor
Shahjahan,is recorded in atleast three chronicles titled
`Aadaab-e-Alamgiri', `Yadgarnama', and the `Muruqqa-i-
Akbarabadi' (edited by Said Ahmed, Agra, 1931, page 43,
footnote 2). In that letter Aurangzeb records in 1652
CE itself that the several buildings in the fancied
burial place of Mumtaz were seven storeyed and were so
old that they were all leaking, while the dome had
developed a crack on the northern side. Aurangzeb,
therefore, ordered immediate repairs to the buildings at
his own expense while recommending to the emperor that
more elaborate repairs be carried out later. This is the
proof that during Shahjahan's reign itself that the Taj
complex was so old as to need immediate repairs.
21. The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur retains in his secret
personal `Kapad-Dwara' collection two orders from
Shahjahan dated Dec 18, 1633 (bearing modern nos. R. 176
and 177) requestioning the Taj building complex. That
was so blatant a usurpation that the then ruler of Jaipur
was ashamed to make the document public.
22. The Rajasthan State archives at Bikaner preserve
three other firmans addressed by Shahjahan to the
Jaipur's ruler Jaising ordering the latter to supply
marble (for Mumtaz's grave and koranic grafts) from his
Makranna quarris, and stone cutters. Jaisingh was
apparently so enraged at the blatant seizure of the
Tajmahal that he refused to oblige Shahjahan by providing
marble for grafting koranic engravings and fake
centotaphs for further desecration of the Tajmahal.
Jaising looked at Shahjahan's demand for marble and stone
cutters, as an insult added to injury. Therefore, he
refused to send any marble and instead detained the stone
cutters in his protective custody.
23. The three firmans demanding marble were sent to
Jaisingh within about two years of Mumtaz's death. Had
Shahjahan really built the Tajmahal over a period of 22
years, the marble would have needed only after 15 or 20
years not immediately after Mumtaz's death.
24. Moreover, the three mention neither the Tajmahal, nor
Mumtaz, nor the burial. The cost and the quantity of the
stone also are not mentioned. This proves that an
insignificant quantity of marble was needed just for some
supercial tinkering and tampering with the Tajmahal.
Even otherwise Shahjahan could never hope to build a
fabulous Tajmahal by abject dependence for marble on a
non-cooperative Jaisingh.
EUROPEAN VISITOR'S ACCOUNTS
25. Tavernier, a French jeweller has recorded in his
travel memoirs that Shahjahan purposely buried Mumtaz
near the Taz-i-Makan (i.e.,`The Taj building') where
foriegners used to come as they do even today so that the
world may admire. He also adds that the cost of the
scaffold- ing was more than that of the entire work. The
work that Shahjahan commissioned in the Tejomahalaya Shiv
temple was plundering at the costly fixtures inside it,
uprooting the Shiv idols, planting the centotaphs in
their place on two stories, inscribing the koran along
the arches and walling up six of the seven stories of the
Taj. It was this plunder, desecrating and plunderring of
the rooms which took 22 years.
26. Peter Mundy, an English visitor to Agra recorded in
1632 (within only a year of Mumtaz's death) that `the
places of note in and around Agra, included Taj-e-Mahal's
tomb, gardens and bazaars'. He, therefore, confirms that
that the Tajmahal had been a noteworthy building even
before Shahjahan.
27. De Laet, a Dutch official has listed Mansingh's
palace about a mile from Agra fort, as an outstanding
building of pre-Shahjahan's time. Shahjahan's court
chronicle, the Badshahnama records, Mumtaz's burial in
the same Mansingh's palace.
28. Bernier, a contemporary French visitor has noted that
non-muslim's were barred entry into the basement (at the
time when Shahjahan requisitioned Mansingh's palace)
which contained a dazzling light. Obviously, he reffered
to the silver doors, gold railing, the gem studded
lattice and strings of pearl hanging over Shiv's idol.
Shahjahan comandeered the building to grab all the
wealth, making Mumtaz's death a convineant pretext.
29. Johan Albert Mandelslo, who describes life in agra in
1638 (only 7 years after mumtaz's death) in detail (in
his `Voyages and Travels to West-Indies', published by
John Starkey and John Basset, London), makes no mention
of the Tajmahal being under constuction though it is
commonly erringly asserted or assumed that the Taj was
being built from 1631 to 1653.
SANSKRIT INSCRIPTION
30. A Sanskrit inscription too supports the conclusion
that the Taj originated as a Shiv temple. Wrongly termed
as the Bateshwar inscription (currently preserved on the
top floor of the Lucknow museum), it refers to the
raising of a "crystal white Shiv temple so alluring that
Lord Shiv once enshrined in it decided never to return to
Mount Kailash -- his usual abode". That inscription dated
1155 CE was removed from the Tajmahal garden at
Shahjahan's orders. Historicians and Archeaologists have
blundered in terming the insription the `Bateshwar
inscription' when the record doesn't say that it was
found by Bateshwar. It ought, in fact, to be called `The
Tejomahalaya inscription' because it was originally
installed in the Taj garden before it was uprooted and
cast away at Shahjahan's command.
A clue to the tampering by Shahjahan is found on pages
216-217, vol. 4, of Archealogiical Survey of India
Reports (published 1874) stating that a "great square
black balistic pillar which, with the base and capital of
another pillar. . . now in the grounds of Agra, . . . it
is well known, once stood in the garden of Tajmahal".
MISSING ELEPHANTS
31. Far from the building of the Taj, Shahjahan
disfigured it with black koranic lettering and heavily
robbed it of its Sanskrit inscription, several idols and
two huge stone elephants extending their trunks in a
welcome arch over the gateway where visitors these days
buy entry tickets. An Englishman, Thomas Twinning,
records (pg. 191 of his book "Travels in India - A
Hundred Years ago") that in November 1794 "I arrived at
the high walls which enclose the Taj-e-Mahal and its
circumjacent buildings. I here got out of the palanquine
and . . . mounted a short flight of steps leading to a
beautiful portal which formed the centre of this side of
the `COURT OF ELEPHANTS" as the great area was called."
KORANIC PATCHES
32. The Taj Mahal is scrawled over with 14 chapters of
the Koran but nowhere is there even the slightest or the
remotest allusion in that Islamic overwriting to
Shahjahan's authorship of the Taj. Had Shahjahan been
the builder he would have said so in so many words before
beginning to quote Koran.
33. That Shahjahan, far from building the marble Taj,
only disfigured it with black lettering is mentioned by
the inscriber Amanat Khan Shirazi himself in an
inscription on the building. A close scrutiny of the
Koranic lettering reveals that they are grafts patched up
with bits of variegated stone on an ancient Shiv temple.
CARBON 14 TEST
34. A wooden piece from the riverside doorway of the Taj
subjected to the carbon 14 test by an American
Laboratory, has revealed that the door to be 300 years
older than Shahjahan,since the doors of the Taj, broken
open by Muslim invaders repeatedly from the 11th century
onwards, had to b replaced from time to time. The Taj
edifice is much more older. It belongs to 1155 A.D,
i.e., almost 500 years anterior to Shahjahan.
ARCHITECHTURAL EVIDENCE
35. Well known Western authorities on architechture like
E. B. Havell, Mrs. Kenoyer and Sir W. W. Hunterhave gone
on record to say that the TajMahal is built in the Hindu
temple style. Havell points out the ground plan of the
ancient Hindu Chandi Seva Temple in Java is identical
with that of the Taj.
36. A central dome with cupolas at its four corners is a
universal feature of Hindu temples.
37. The four marble pillars at the plinth corners are of
the Hindu style. They are used as lamp towers during
night and watch towers during the day. Such towers serve
to demarcate the holy precincts. Hindu wedding altars
and the altar set up for God Satyanarayan worship have
pillars raised at the four corners.
38. The octagonal shape of the Tajmahal has a special
Hindu significance because Hindus alone have special
names for the eight directions, and celestial guards
assigned to them. The pinnacle points to the heaven
while the foundation signifies to the nether world. Hindu
forts, cities, palaces and temples genrally have an
octagonal layout or some octagonal features so that
together with the pinnacle and the foundation they cover
all the ten directions in which the king or God holds
sway, according to Hindu belief.
39. The Tajmahal has a trident pinncle over the dome. A
full scale of the trident pinnacle is inlaid in the red
stone courtyard to the east of the Taj. The central
shaft of the trident depicts a "Kalash" (sacred pot)
holding two bent mango leaves and a coconut. This is a
sacred Hindu motif. Identical pinnacles have been seen
over Hindu and Buddhist temples in the Himalayan region.
Tridents are also depicted against a red lotus background
at the apex of the stately marble arched entrances on all
four sides of the Taj. People fondly but mistakenly
believed all these centuries that the Taj pinnacle
depicts a Islamic cresent and star was a lighting
conductor installed by the British rulers in India.
Contrarily, the pinnacle is a marvel of Hindu metallurgy
since the pinnacle made of non-rusting alloy, is also
perhaps a lightning deflector. That the pinnacle of the
replica is drawn in the eastern courtyard is significant
because the east is of special importance to the Hindus,
as the direction in which the sun rises. The pinnacle on
the dome has the word `Allah' on it after capture. The
pinnacle figure on the ground does not have the word
Allah.
INCONSISTENCIES
40. The two buildings which face the marble Taj from the
east and west are identical in design, size and shape and
yet the eastern building is explained away by Islamic
tradition, as a community hall while the western building
is claimed to be a mosque. How could buildings meant for
radically different purposes be identical? This proves
that the western building was put to use as a mosque
after seizure of the Taj property by Shahjahan. Curiously
enough the building being explained away as a mosque has
no minaret. They form a pair af reception pavilions of
the Tejomahalaya temple palace.
41. A few yards away from the same flank is the Nakkar
Khana alias DrumHouse which is a intolerable incongruity
for Islam. The proximity of the Drum House indicates
that the western annex was not originally a mosque.
Contrarily a drum house is a neccesity in a Hindu temple
or palace because Hindu chores,in the morning and
evening, begin to the sweet strains of music.
42. The embossed patterns on the marble exterior of the
centotaph chamber wall are foilage of the conch shell
design and the Hindu letter "OM". The octagonally laid
marble lattices inside the centotaph chamber depict pink
lotuses on their top railing. The Lotus, the conch and
the OM are the sacred motifs associated with the Hindu
deities and temples.
43. The spot occupied by Mumtaz's centotaph was formerly
occupied by the Hindu Teja Linga -- a lithic
representation of Lord Shiv. Around it are five
perambulatory passages. Perambulation could be done
around the marble lattice or through the spacious marble
chambers surrounding the centotaph chamber, and in the
open over the marble platform. It is also customary for
the Hindus to have apertures along the perambulatory
passage, overlooking the deity. Such apertures exist in
the perambulatories in the Tajmahal.
44. The sanctom sanctorum in the Taj has silver doors and
gold railings as Hindu temples have. It also had nets of
pearl and gems stuffed in the marble lattices. It was the
lure of this wealth which made Shahjahan commandeer the
Taj from a helpless vassal Jaisingh, the then ruler of
Jaipur.
45. Peter Mundy, a Englishman records (in 1632, within a
year of Mumtaz's death) having seen a gem studded gold
railing around her tomb. Had the Taj been under
construction for 22 years, a costly gold railing would
not have been noticed by Peter mundy within a year of
Mumtaz's death. Such costly fixtures are installed in a
building only after it is ready for use. This indicates
that Mumtaz's centotaph was grafted in place of the
Shivalinga in the centre of the gold railings.
Subsequently the gold railings, silver doors, nets of
pearls, gem fillings etc. were all carried away to
Shahjahan's treasury. The seizure of the Taj thus
constituted an act of highhanded Moghul robery causing a
big row between Shahjahan and Jaisingh.
46. In the marble flooring around Mumtaz's centotaph may
be seen tiny mosaic patches. Those patches indicate the
spots where the support for the gold railings were
embedded in the floor. They indicate a rectangular
fencing.
47. Above Mumtaz's centotaph hangs a chain by which now
hangs a lamp. Before capture by Shahjahan the chain used
to hold a water pitcher from which water used to drip on
the Shivalinga.
48. It is this earlier Hindu tradition in the Tajmahal
which gave the Islamic myth of Shahjahan's love tear
dropping on Mumtaz's tomb on the full moon day of the
winter eve.
TREASURY WELL
49. Between the so-called mosque and the drum house is a
multistoried octagonal well with a flight of stairs
reaching down to the water level. This is a traditional
treasury well in Hindu temple palaces. Treasure chests
used to be kept in the lower apartments while treasury
personnel had their offices in the upper chambers. The
circular stairs made it difficult for intruders to reach
down to the treasury or to escape with it undetected or
unpursued. In case the premises had to be surrendered to
a besieging enemy the treasure could be pushed into the
well to remain hidden from the conquerer and remain safe
for salvaging if the place was reconquered. Such an
elaborate multistoried well is superflous for a mere
mausoleum. Such a grand, gigantic well is unnecessary
for a tomb.
BURIAL DATE UNKNOWN
50. Had Shahjahan really built the Taj Mahal as a wonder
mausoleum, history would have recorded a specific date on
which she was ceremoniously buried in the Taj Mahal. No
such date is ever mentioned. This important missing
detail decisively exposes the falsity of the Tajmahal
legend.
51. Even the year of Mumtaz's death is unknown. It is
variously speculated to be 1629, 1630, 1631 or 1632. Had
she deserved a fabulous burial, as is claimed, the date
of her death had not been a matter of much speculation.
In an harem teeming with 5000 women it was difficult to
keep track of dates of death. Apparently the date of
Mumtaz's death was so insignificant an event, as not to
merit any special notice. Who would then build a Taj for
her burial?
BASELESS LOVE STORIES
52. Stories of Shahjahan's exclusive infatuation for
Mumtaz's are concoctions. They have no basis in history
nor has any book ever written on their fancied love
affairs. Those stories have been invented as an
afterthought to make Shahjahan's authorship of the Taj
look plausible.
COST
53. The cost of the Taj is nowhere recorded in
Shahjahan's court papers because Shahjahan never built
the Tajmahal. That is why wild estimates of the cost by
gullible writers have ranged from 4 million to 91.7
million rupees.
PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION
54. Likewise the period of construction has been guessed
to be anywhere between 10 years and 22 years. There
would have not been any scope for guesswork had the
building construction been on record in the court papers.
ARCHITECTS
55. The designer of the Tajmahal is also variously
mentioned as Essa Effendy, a Persian or Turk, or Ahmed
Mehendis or a Frenchman, Austin deBordeaux, or Geronimo
Veroneo, an Italian, or Shahjahan himself.
RECORDS DON'T EXIST
56. Twenty thousand labourers are supposed to have worked
for 22 years during Shahjahan's reign in building the
Tajmahal. Had this been true, there should have been
available in Shahjahan's court papers design drawings,
heaps of labour muster rolls, daily expenditure sheets,
bills and receipts of material ordered, and commisioning
orders. There is not even a scrap of paper of this kind.
57. It is, therefore, court flatterers,blundering
historians, somnolent archeologists, fiction writers,
senile poets, careless tourists officials and erring
guides who are responsible for hustling the world into
believing in Shahjahan's mythical authorship of the Taj.
58. Description of the gardens around the Taj of
Shahjahan's time mention Ketaki, Jai, Jui, Champa,
Maulashree, Harshringar and Bel. All these are plants
whose flowers or leaves are used in the worship of Hindu
deities. Bel leaves are exclusively used in Lord Shiv's
worship. A graveyard is planted only with shady trees
because the idea of using fruit and flower from plants in
a cemetary is abhorrent to human conscience. The presence
of Bel and other flower plants in the Taj garden is proof
of its having been a Shiv temple before seizure by
Shahjahan.
59. Hindu temples are often built on river banks and sea
beaches. The Taj is one such built on the bank of the
Yamuna river -- an ideal location for a Shiv temple.
60. Prophet Mohammad has ordained that the burial spot of
a muslim should be inconspicous and must not be marked by
even a single tombstone. In flagrant violation of this,
the Tajamhal has one grave in the basement and another in
the first floor chamber both ascribed to Mumtaz. Those
two centotaphs were infact erected by Shahjahan to bury
the two tier Shivalingas that were consecrated in the
Taj. It is customary for Hindus to install two
Shivalingas one over the other in two stories as may be
seen in the Mahankaleshwar temple in Ujjain and the
Somnath temple raised by Ahilyabai in Somnath Pattan.
61. The Tajmahal has identical entrance arches on all
four sides. This is a typical Hindu building style known
as Chaturmukhi, i.e., four-faced.
THE HINDU DOME
62. The Tajmahal has a reverberating dome. Such a dome
is an absurdity for a tomb which must ensure peace and
silence. Contrarily reverberating domes are a neccesity
in Hindu temples because they create an ecstatic
dinmultiplying and magnifying the sound of bells, drums
and pipes accompanying the worship of Hindu deities.
63. The Tajmahal dome bears a lotus cap. Original
Islamic domes have a bald top as is exemplified by the
Pakistan Embassy in Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, and the
domes in the Pakistan's newly built capital Islamabad.
64. The Tajmahal entrance faces south. Had the Taj been
an Islamic building it should have faced the west.
TOMB IS THE GRAVE, NOT THE BUILDING
65. A widespread misunderstanding has resulted in
mistaking the building for the grave. Invading Islam
raised graves in captured buildings in every country it
overran. Therefore, hereafter people must learn not to
confound the building with the grave mounds which are
grafts in conquered buildings. This is true of the
Tajmahal too. One may therefore admit (for arguments
sake) that Mumtaz lies buried inside the Taj. But that
should not be construed to mean that the Taj was raised
over Mumtaz's grave.
66. The Taj is a seven storied building. Prince
Aurangzeb also mentions this in his letter to Shahjahan.
The marble edifice comprises four stories including the
lone, tall circular hall inside the top, and the lone
chamber in the basement. In between are two floors each
containing 12 to 15 palatial rooms. Below the marble
plinth reaching down to the river at the rear are two
more stories in red stone. They may be seen from the
river bank. The seventh storey must be below the ground
(river) level since every ancient Hindu building had a
subterranian storey.
67. Immediately bellow the marble plinth on the river
flank are 22 rooms in red stone with their ventilators
all walled up by Shahjahan. Those rooms, made
uninhibitably by Shahjahan, are kept locked by Archealogy
Department of India. The lay visitor is kept in the dark
about them. Those 22 rooms still bear ancient Hindu
paint on their walls and ceilings. On their side is a
nearly 33 feet long corridor. There are two door frames
one at either end ofthe corridor. But those doors are
intriguingly sealed with brick and lime.
68. Apparently those doorways originally sealed by
Shahjahan have been since unsealed and again walled up
several times. In 1934 a resident of Delhi took a peep
inside from an opening in the upper part of the doorway.
To his dismay he saw huge hall inside. It contained many
statues huddled around a central beheaded image of Lord
Shiv. It could be that, in there, are Sanskrit
inscriptions too. All the seven stories of the Tajmahal
need to be unsealed and scoured to ascertain what
evidence they may be hiding in the form of Hindu images,
Sanskrit inscriptions, scriptures, coins and utensils.
69. Apart from Hindu images hidden in the sealed stories
it is also learnt that Hindu images are also stored in
the massive walls of the Taj. Between 1959 and 1962 when
Mr. S. R. Rao was the Archealogical Superintendent in
Agra, he happened to notice a deep and wide crack in the
wall of the central octagonal chamber of the Taj. When a
part of the wall was dismantled to study the crack out
popped two or three marble images. The matter was hushed
up and the images were reburied where they had been
embedded at Shahjahan's behest. Confirmation of this has
been obtained from several sources. It was only when I
began my investigation into the antecedents of the Taj I
came across the above information which had remained a
forgotten secret. What better proof is needed of the
Temple origin of the Tajmahal? Its walls and sealed
chambers still hide in Hindu idols that were consecrated
in it before Shahjahan's seizure of the Taj.
PRE-SHAHJAHAN REFERENCES TO THE TAJ
70. Apparently the Taj as a central palace seems to have
an chequered history. The Taj was perhaps desecrated and
looted by every Muslim invader from Mohammad Ghazni
onwards but passing into Hindu hands off and on, the
sanctity of the Taj as a Shiv temple continued to be
revived after every muslim onslaught. Shahjahan was the
last muslim to desecrate the Tajmahal alias Tejomahalay.
71. Vincent Smith records in his book titled `Akbar the
Great Moghul' that `Babur's turbulent life came to an end
in his garden palace in Agra in 1630'. That palace was
none other than the Tajmahal.
72. Babur's daughter Gulbadan Begum in her chronicle
titled `Humayun Nama' refers to the Taj as the Mystic
House.
73. Babur himself refers to the Taj in his memoirs as the
palace captured by Ibrahim Lodi containing a central
octagonal chamber and having pillars on the four sides.
All these historical references allude to the Taj 100
years before Shahjahan.
74. The Tajmahal precincts extend to several hundred
yards in all directions. Across the river are ruins of
the annexes of the Taj, the bathing ghats and a jetty for
the ferry boat. In the Victoria gardens outside covered
with creepers is the long spur of the ancient outer wall
ending in a octagonal red stone tower. Such extensive
grounds all magnificently done up, are a superfluity for
a grave.
75. Had the Taj been specially built to bury Mumtaz, it
should not have been cluttered with other graves. But
the Taj premises contain several graves atleast in its
eastern and southern pavilions.
76. In the southern flank, on the other side of the
Tajganj gate are buried in identical pavilions queens
Sarhandi Begum, and Fatehpuri Begum and a maid Satunnisa
Khanum. Such parity burial can be justified only if the
queens had been demoted or the maid promoted. But since
Shahjahan had commandeered (not built) the Taj, he
reduced it general to a muslim cemetary as was the habit
of all his Islamic predeccssors, and buried a queen in a
vacant pavillion and a maid in another identical
pavilion.
77. Shahjahan was married to several other women before
and after Mumtaz. She, therefore, deserved no special
consideration in having a wonder mausoleum built for her.
78. Mumtaz was a commoner by birth and so she did not
qualify for a fairyland burial.
79. Mumtaz died in Burhanpur which is about 600 miles
from Agra. Her grave there is intact. Therefore ,the
centotaphs raised in stories of the Taj in her name seem
to be fakes hiding in Hindu Shiv emblems.
80. Shahjahan seems to have simulated Mumtaz's burial in
Agra to find a pretext to surround the temple palace with
his fierce and fanatic troops and remove all the costly
fixtures in his treasury. This finds confirmation in the
vague noting in the Badshahnama which says that the
Mumtaz's (exhumed) body was brought to Agra from
Burhanpur and buried `next year'. An official term would
not use a nebulous term unless it is to hide some thing.
81. A pertinent consideration is that a Shahjahan who did
not build any palaces for Mumtaz while she was alive,
would not build a fabulous mausoleum for a corpse which
was no longer kicking or clicking.
82. Another factor is that Mumtaz died within two or
three years of Shahjahan becoming an emperor. Could he
amass so much superflous wealth in that short span as to
squander it on a wonder mausoleum?
83. While Shahjahan's special attachment to Mumtaz is
nowhere recorded in history his amorous affairs with many
other ladies from maids to mannequins including his own
daughter Jahanara, find special attention in accounts of
Shahjahan's reign. Would Shahjahan shower his hard
earned wealth on Mumtaz's corpse?
84. Shahjahan was a stingy, usurious monarch. He came to
throne murdering all his rivals. He was not therefore,
the doting spendthrift that he is made out to be.
85. A Shahjahan disconsolate on Mumtaz's death is
suddenly credited with a resolve to build the Taj. This
is a psychological incongruity. Grief is a disabling,
incapacitating emotion.
86. A infatuated Shahjahan is supposed to have raised the
Taj over the dead Mumtaz, but carnal, physical sexual
love is again a incapacitating emotion. A womaniser is
ipso facto incapable of any constructive activity. When
carnal love becomes uncontrollable the person either
murders somebody or commits suicide. He cannot raise a
Tajmahal. A building like the Taj invariably originates
in an ennobling emotion like devotion to God, to one's
mother and mother country or power and glory.
87. Early in the year 1973, chance digging in the garden
in front of the Taj revealed another set of fountains
about six feet below the present fountains. This proved
two things. Firstly, the subterranean fountains were
there before Shahjahan laid the surface fountains. And
secondly that those fountains are aligned to the Taj that
edifice too is of pre-Shahjahan origin. Apparently the
garden and its fountains had sunk from annual monsoon
flooding and lack of maintenance for centuries during the
Islamic rule.
89. The stately rooms on the upper floor of the Tajmahal
have been striped of their marble mosaic by Shahjahan to
obtain matching marble for raising fake tomb stones
inside the Taj premises at several places. Contrasting
with the rich finished marble ground floor rooms the
striping of the marble mosaic covering the lower half of
the walls and flooring of the upper storey have given
those rooms a naked, robbed look. Since no visitors are
allowed entry to the upper storey this despoilation by
Shahjahan has remained a well guarded secret. There is
no reason why Shahjahan's loot of the upper floor marble
should continue to be hidden from the public even after
200 years of termination of Moghul rule.
90. Bernier, the French traveller has recorded that no
non-muslim was allowed entry into the secret nether
chambers of the Taj because there are some dazzling
fixtures there. Had those been installed by Shahjahan
they should have been shown the public as a matter of
pride. But since it was commandeered Hindu wealth which
Shahjahan wanted to remove to his treasury, he didn't
want the public to know about it.
91. The approach to Taj is dotted with hillocks raised
with earth dugout from foundation trenches. The hillocks
served as outer defences of the Taj building complex.
Raising such hillocks from foundation earth, is a common
Hindu device of hoary origin. Nearby Bharatpur provides
a graphic parallel.
Peter Mundy has recorded that Shahjahan employed
thousands of labourers to level some of those hillocks.
This is a graphic proof of the Tajmahal existing before
Shahjahan.
["92." appears to be missing in this transmission.]
93. At the backside of the river bank is a Hindu
crematorium, several palaces, Shiv temples and bathings
of ancient origin. Had Shahjahan built the Tajmahal, he
would have destroyed the Hindu features.
94. The story that Shahjahan wanted to build a Black
marble Taj across the river, is another motivated myth.
The ruins dotting the other side of the river are those
of Hindu structures demolished during muslim invasions
and not the plinth of another Tajmahal. Shahjahan who
did not even build the white Tajmahal would hardly ever
think of building a black marble Taj. He was so miserly
that he forced labourers to work gratis even in the
superficial tampering neccesary to make a Hindu temple
serve as a Muslim tomb.
95. The marble that Shahjahan used for grafting Koranic
lettering in the Taj is of a pale white shade while the
rest of the Taj is built of a marble with rich yellow
tint. This disparity is proof of the Koranic extracts
being a superimposition.
96. Though imaginative attempts have been made by some
historians to foist some fictitious name on history as
the designer of the Taj others more imaginative have
credited Shajahan himself with superb architechtural
proficiency and artistic talent which could easily
concieve and plan the Taj even in acute bereavment. Such
people betray gross ignorance of history in as much as
Shajahan was a cruel tyrant ,a great womaniser and a drug
and drink addict.
97. Fanciful accounts about Shahjahan commisioning the
Taj are all confused. Some asserted that Shahjahan
ordered building drawing from all over the world and
chose one from among them. Others assert that a man at
hand was ordered to design a mausoleum amd his design was
approved. Had any of those versions been true
Shahjahan's court papers should have had thousands of
drawings concerning the Taj. But there is not even a
single drawing. This is yet another clinching proof that
Shahjahan did not commision the Taj.
98. The Tajmahal is surrounded by huge mansions which
indicate that several battles have been waged around the
Taj several times.
99. At the south east corner of the Taj is an ancient
royal cattle house. Cows attached to the Tejomahalay
temple used to reared there. A cowshed is an incongruity
in an Islamic tomb.
100. Over the western flank of the Taj are several
stately red stone annexes. These are superflous for a
mausoleum.
101. The entire Taj complex comprises of 400 to 500
rooms. Residential accomodation on such a stupendous
scale is unthinkable in a mausoleum.
102. The neighbouring Tajganj township's massive
protective wall also encloses the Tajmahal temple palace
complex. This is a clear indication that the Tejomahalay
temple palace was part and parcel of the township. A
street of that township leads straight into the Tajmahal.
The Tajganj gate is aligned in a perfect straight line to
the octagonal red stone garden gate and the stately
entrance arch of the Tajmahal. The Tajganj gate besides
being central to the Taj temple complex, is also put on a
pedestal. The western gate by which the visitors enter
the Taj complex is a camparatively minor gateway. It has
become the entry gate for most visitors today because the
railway station and the bus station are on that side.
103. The Tajmahal has pleasure pavillions which a tomb
would never have.
104. A tiny mirror glass in a gallery of the Red Fort in
Agra reflects the Taj mahal. Shahjahan is said to have
spent his last eight years of life as a prisoner in that
gallery peering at the reflected Tajmahal and sighing in
the name of Mumtaz. This myth is a blend of many
falsehoods. Firstly, old Shajahan was held prisoner by
his son Aurangzeb in the basement storey in the Fort and
not in an open,fashionable upper storey. Secondly, the
glass piece was fixed in the 1930's by Insha Allah Khan,
a peon of the archaelogy dept. just to illustrate to the
visitors how in ancient times the entire apartment used
to scintillate with tiny mirror pieces reflecting the
Tejomahalay temple a thousand fold. Thirdly, a old
decrepit Shahjahan with pain in his joints and cataract
in his eyes, would not spend his day craning his neck at
an awkward angle to peer into a tiny glass piece with
bedimmed eyesight when he could as well his face around
and have full,direct view of the Tjamahal itself. But
the general public is so gullible as to gulp all such
prattle of wily, unscrupulous guides.
105. That the Tajmahal dome has hundreds of iron rings
sticking out of its exterior is a feature rarely noticed.
These are made to hold Hindu earthen oil lamps for temple
illumination.
106. Those putting implicit faith in Shahjahan authorship
of the Taj have been imagining Shahjahan-Mumtaz to be a
soft-hearted romantic pair like Romeo and Juliet. But
contemporary accounts speak of Shahjahan as a hard
hearted ruler who was constantly egged on to acts of
tyranny and cruelty, by Mumtaz.
107. School and College history carry the myth that
Shahjahan reign was a golden period in which there was
peace and plenty and that Shahjahan commisioned many
buildings and patronized literature. This is pure
fabrication. Shahjahan did not commision even a single
building as we have illustrated by a detailed analysis of
the Tajmahal legend. Shahjahn had to enrage in 48
military campaigns during a reign of nearly 30 years
which proves that his was not a era of peace and plenty.
108. The interior of the dome rising over Mumtaz's
centotaph has a representation of Sun and cobras drawn in
gold. Hindu warriors trace their origin to the Sun. For
an Islamic mausoleum the Sun is redundant. Cobras are
always associated with Lord Shiv.
109. The muslim caretakers of the tomb in the Tajmahal
used to possess a document which they styled as "Tarikh-
i-Tajmahal". Historian H. G. Keene has branded it as `a
document of doubtful authenticity'. Keene was uncannily
right since we have seen that Shahjahan not being the
creator of the Tajmahal any document which credits
Shahjahn with the Tajmahal, must be an outright forgery.
Even that forged document is reported to have been
smuggled out of Pakistan. Besides such forged documents
there are whole chronicles on the Taj which are pure
concoctions.
110. There is lot of sophistry and casuistry or atleast
confused thinking associated with the Taj even in the
minds of proffesional historians, archaelogists and
architects. At the outset they assert that the Taj is
entirely Muslim in design. But when it is pointed out
that its lotus capped dome and the four corner pillars
etc. are all entirely Hindu those worthies shift ground
and argue that that was probably because the workmen were
Hindu and were to introduce their own patterns. Both
these arguments are wrong because Muslim accounts claim
the designers to be Muslim,and the workers invariably
carry out the employer's dictates.
The Taj is only a typical illustration of how all
historic buildings and townships from Kashmir to Cape
Comorin though of Hindu origin have been ascribed to this
or that Muslim ruler or courtier.
It is hoped that people the world over who study Indian
history will awaken to this new finding and revise their
erstwhile beliefs.
Those interested in an in-depth study of the above and
many other revolutionary rebuttals may read this author's
other research books.
Tajmahal - The True Story authored by Shri P. N. Oak can
be ordered from:
A. Ghosh Publisher
5720 W. Little York 216
Houston, Texas 77091
USA
The above article is available at the Global Hindu
Electronic Network sponsored web site, The Hindu Universe
located at http://www.hindunet.org/
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
.

User: "I.S.I walla"
Title: Re: Origins of Taj Mahal - Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple	26 Apr 2005 05:27:27 AM

(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message

THE TAJ MAHAL IS TEJOMAHALAY

A Hindu Temple <snip>

Not only is the Taj mahal a Hindu temple, but a lot of other things
are to be credited to the losers as well.
Whitehouse: Originally "Vit-haas", a Hindu Puja spot before the Red
Indians were in America.
William Shakespeare: Originally Valli Sakapira, a Hindu Telanga
playwright whose works were translated by them English.
Tower of Pisa: Originally Tower of Vaisya in Neolithic times
If you ever visit Taj Mahal, on the way you will encounter a bogus
Hindu Taj Mahal complete with Onion domes where brahmins run a fraud
spiritual service for tourists heading towards the real one.The Taj
mahal is so hated by brahmins that they spent crores of rupees on a
competing Hindu wonder known as
Dayal Bagh. When completed, this Hindu wonder turned out to be as ugly
as the three headed multi-limbed gods and sank into oblivion.
Taj Mahal is India's biggest source of foreign tourist revenue without
which India would go bankrupt. If you pay a visit, you pay 10 Rupees
for entry if you are Indian and $10 if you are non-Indian!
Imagine making non-Americans pay $10 for visiting the statue of
Liberty. Where else but India.
|***********************************************|
| |*******************************************| |
| | The Indiasucks File...Killfile on India | |
| | http://www.indiasucks.netfirms.com | |
| |*******************************************| |
|***********************************************|
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Origins of Taj Mahal - Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple	26 Apr 2005 05:46:11 AM

Hindus have a vulgar habit of desecrating anything of value such as the
Charminar in Hyderabad to the fort of Tipu Sultan with a gaudy puja
spot. Slowly the puja spot becomes a mandir and then brahmo-fascits
claim that the main structure was a mandir.
If there were lax property laws in USA, ugly doppa mandirs would sprout
over all real estate with commercial or historic value. After all,
bhagwan isnt interested in property rights.
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Re: Talk.Origins Banned Subject: Humans are half Banana, a Budikka Hole