BBC says about Taj Mahal---hidden truth

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

The Video link sent by Mr.Jaiyaram & the explanations provided by Mr.Meyappan are really truly educational & Inspiring.

 

 

In relation to the topic that has been in the discussion I'm posting this article.

 

If this is true then the myth has to be cleared and historyrewritten. If this is the fact then the awareness has to bespread to all.If you dont believe the article below, and have faith upon BBC,please visit their website in this link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A5220Real History of "Taj Mahal"It is proved Taj Mahal is not a burial of Mumtaj but an ancienttemple of Lord Shiva. Sufficient proofs and website links arewith this mail.You can try this link (text and photo) before/after going throughthis mail:http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htmThe Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan in the memory of his wife MumtazMahal built the Taj Mahal. It was built in 22 years (1631 to 1653) by20,000 artisans brought to India from all over t he world! . Many peoplebelieve Ustad Isa of Iran

designed it." This is what your guideprobably told youif you ever visited the Taj Mahal. This is the same story I readin my history book as a student.NOW READ THIS.......No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N. Oak, whobelieves the whole world has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal:The True Story, Oak says theTaj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindutemple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya). Inthe course of his research Oak discovered that the Shiva templepalace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur,Jai Singh. In his own court chronicle, Badshahnama,Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansionin Agra was taken from Jai SIngh for Mumtaz's burial. The ex-Maharajaof Jaipur still retains in his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahanfor surrendering the Taj building. Usi ng captured temples andmansions,

as a burial place fordead courtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslimrulers.For example, Humayun,Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung areall buried in such mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the name of TajMahal. He says the term "Mahal" has never been used for a building in anyMuslim countries from Afghanisthan to Algeria. "The unusual explanationthat the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogicalin atleast two respects.Firstly, her name was never Mumtaz Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani,"he writes. Secondly, one cannot omit the first three letters'Mum' from a woman's name to derive the remainder as the name for thebuilding."Taj Mahal, he claims, is a corrupt version of Tejo Mahalaya, orLord Shiva's Palace. Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz andShah Jahan is a fairy tale created bycourt sycophants, blundering historians and sloppyarchaeolog ists. Not

asingle royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates thelove story.Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the TajMahal predates Shah Jahan's era, and was a temple dedicated toShiva, worshipped by Rajputs of Agra city. For example, Prof.Marvin Miller of New York took afew samples from the riverside doorway of the Taj. Carbon datingtests revealedthat the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan. Europeantraveler JohanAlbert Mandelslo,who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven yearsafter Mumtaz'sdeath), describes the life of the city in his memoirs. But hemakes no reference to the Taj Mahal being built. The writingsof Peter Mundy, an English visitor to Agra within a year ofMumtaz's death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy buildingwell before Shah Jahan's time.Prof. Oak points out a number of design and architecturalinconsistenciesthat support the belief

of the Taj Mah al being a typical Hindutemple rather than a mausoleum. Many rooms in the Taj ! Mahal have remainedsealed since Shah Jahan's time and are still inaccessible to thepublic. Oak asserts they contain a headless statue of Lord Shiva and otherobjects commonly used for worship rituals inHindu temples. Fearing political backlash, Indira Gandhi'sgovernment tried to have Prof. Oak's book withdrawn from thebookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the firstedition dire consequences. There is only one way to discreditor validate Oak's research.The current government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal underU.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate.Please check this link ........it adds as a visual proofhttp://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htmThank You.

Priya

[Guest guest]

Muruga saranam

 

I had received this link a couiple of years back too.

 

I don't think recorded history can have such a great extent of deviation from truth.

 

Mumtaz in Arabic means excellent, elegant, splendid etc.. Taj means crown and Mahal means Place. This is knowsn to many who speak Hindi or Urdu. So it could not have come from the name of Mumtaz. I don't know if it was built on a Siva Temple, as many mosques are told to have been built so.

 

Artciles arousing feelings have to be dealt with more wisdom and prudence as people tend to immediately belive what is told. Hence I think we should not conclude immediately and start developing disliking to Muslims in general. It is easy to develop but later very difficult to erase.

 

Muruga Saranam

 

With Best RegardsMeyyappan S

 

 

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:21 AM, priya mumu <priyamumu wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear All,

 

The Video link sent by Mr.Jaiyaram & the explanations provided by Mr.Meyappan are really truly educational & Inspiring.

 

 

In relation to the topic that has been in the discussion I'm posting this article.

 

If this is true then the myth has to be cleared and historyrewritten. If this is the fact then the awareness has to bespread to all.If you dont believe the article below, and have faith upon BBC,

please visit their website in this link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A5220Real History of " Taj Mahal " It is proved Taj Mahal is not a burial of Mumtaj but an ancient

temple of Lord Shiva. Sufficient proofs and website links arewith this mail.You can try this link (text and photo) before/after going throughthis mail:http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm

The Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan in the memory of his wife MumtazMahal built the Taj Mahal. It was built in 22 years (1631 to 1653) by20,000 artisans brought to India from all over t he world! . Many peoplebelieve Ustad Isa of Iran designed it. " This is what your guide

probably told youif you ever visited the Taj Mahal. This is the same story I readin my history book as a student.NOW READ THIS.......No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N. Oak, whobelieves the whole world has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal:

The True Story, Oak says theTaj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindutemple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya). Inthe course of his research Oak discovered that the Shiva temple

palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur,Jai Singh. In his own court chronicle, Badshahnama,Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansionin 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 Jahanfor surrendering the Taj building. Usi ng captured temples andmansions, as a burial place fordead courtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslim

rulers.For example, Humayun,Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung areall buried in such mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the name of TajMahal. He says the term " Mahal " has never been used for a building in any

Muslim countries from Afghanisthan to Algeria. " The unusual explanationthat the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogicalin atleast two respects.Firstly, her name was never Mumtaz Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani, "

he writes. Secondly, one cannot omit the first three letters'Mum' from a woman's name to derive the remainder as the name for thebuilding. " Taj Mahal, he claims, is a corrupt version of Tejo Mahalaya, or

Lord Shiva's Palace. Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz andShah Jahan is a fairy tale created bycourt sycophants, blundering historians and sloppyarchaeolog ists. Not asingle royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the

love story.Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the TajMahal predates Shah Jahan's era, and was a temple dedicated toShiva, worshipped by Rajputs of Agra city. For example, Prof.Marvin Miller of New York took a

few samples from the riverside doorway of the Taj. Carbon datingtests revealedthat the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan. Europeantraveler JohanAlbert Mandelslo,who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven years

after Mumtaz'sdeath), describes the life of the city in his memoirs. But hemakes no reference to the Taj Mahal being built. The writingsof Peter Mundy, an English visitor to Agra within a year ofMumtaz's death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy building

well before Shah Jahan's time.Prof. Oak points out a number of design and architecturalinconsistenciesthat support the belief of the Taj Mah al being a typical Hindutemple rather than a mausoleum. Many rooms in the Taj ! Mahal have remained

sealed since Shah Jahan's time and are still inaccessible to thepublic. Oak asserts they contain a headless statue of Lord Shiva and otherobjects commonly used for worship rituals inHindu temples. Fearing political backlash, Indira Gandhi's

government tried to have Prof. Oak's book withdrawn from thebookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the firstedition dire consequences. There is only one way to discreditor validate Oak's research.

The current government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal underU.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate.Please check this link ........it adds as a visual proofhttp://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm

Thank You.

Priya

[Guest guest]

This is a typical British Divide & Rule Policy  which the british followed since their invasion of India.

 

 

All Indians kwow that many of  Mughal Monuments were built ruining Hindu shrines.

 

Another example is Qutub Minar.

 

This is not the time to as the momentum of growth of of communalism is more than even in the history of India. If extremists and our neighbouring nations fuel and lubricate properly  the present India will be devided into minimum 3 in the coming 50 years.

 

So we have to be careful.

 

This type of talks to be discouraged.

Hara haro hara hara hara

Radhakrishnan 

On 8/17/09, S Meyyappan <smeyyappan wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Muruga saranam

 

I had received this link a couiple of years back too.

 

I don't think recorded history can have such a great extent of deviation from truth.

 

Mumtaz in Arabic means excellent, elegant, splendid etc.. Taj means crown and Mahal means Place. This is knowsn to many who speak Hindi or Urdu. So it could not have come from the name of Mumtaz. I don't know if it was built on a Siva Temple, as many mosques are told to have been built so.

 

Artciles arousing feelings have to be dealt with more wisdom and prudence as people tend to immediately belive what is told. Hence I think we should not conclude immediately and start developing disliking to Muslims in general. It is easy to develop but later very difficult to erase.

 

Muruga Saranam

 

With Best RegardsMeyyappan S

 

 

 

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:21 AM, priya mumu <priyamumu wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear All,

 

The Video link sent by Mr.Jaiyaram & the explanations provided by Mr.Meyappan are really truly educational & Inspiring.

 

 

In relation to the topic that has been in the discussion I'm posting this article.

 

If this is true then the myth has to be cleared and historyrewritten. If this is the fact then the awareness has to bespread to all.If you dont believe the article below, and have faith upon BBC,

please visit their website in this link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A5220

Real History of " Taj Mahal " It is proved Taj Mahal is not a burial of Mumtaj but an ancienttemple of Lord Shiva. Sufficient proofs and website links arewith this mail.You can try this link (text and photo) before/after going through

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

The Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan in the memory of his wife MumtazMahal built the Taj Mahal. It was built in 22 years (1631 to 1653) by20,000 artisans brought to India from all over t he world! . Many peoplebelieve Ustad Isa of Iran designed it. " This is what your guide

probably told youif you ever visited the Taj Mahal. This is the same story I readin my history book as a student.NOW READ THIS.......No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N. Oak, whobelieves the whole world has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal:

The True Story, Oak says theTaj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindutemple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya). Inthe course of his research Oak discovered that the Shiva temple

palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur,Jai Singh. In his own court chronicle, Badshahnama,Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansionin 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 Jahanfor surrendering the Taj building. Usi ng captured temples andmansions, as a burial place fordead courtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslim

rulers.For example, Humayun,Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung areall buried in such mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the name of TajMahal. He says the term " Mahal " has never been used for a building in any

Muslim countries from Afghanisthan to Algeria. " The unusual explanationthat the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogicalin atleast two respects.Firstly, her name was never Mumtaz Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani, "

he writes. Secondly, one cannot omit the first three letters'Mum' from a woman's name to derive the remainder as the name for thebuilding. " Taj Mahal, he claims, is a corrupt version of Tejo Mahalaya, or

Lord Shiva's Palace. Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz andShah Jahan is a fairy tale created bycourt sycophants, blundering historians and sloppyarchaeolog ists. Not asingle royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the

love story.Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the TajMahal predates Shah Jahan's era, and was a temple dedicated toShiva, worshipped by Rajputs of Agra city. For example, Prof.Marvin Miller of New York took a

few samples from the riverside doorway of the Taj. Carbon datingtests revealedthat the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan. Europeantraveler JohanAlbert Mandelslo,who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven years

after Mumtaz'sdeath), describes the life of the city in his memoirs. But hemakes no reference to the Taj Mahal being built. The writingsof Peter Mundy, an English visitor to Agra within a year ofMumtaz's death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy building

well before Shah Jahan's time.Prof. Oak points out a number of design and architecturalinconsistenciesthat support the belief of the Taj Mah al being a typical Hindutemple rather than a mausoleum. Many rooms in the Taj ! Mahal have remained

sealed since Shah Jahan's time and are still inaccessible to thepublic. Oak asserts they contain a headless statue of Lord Shiva and otherobjects commonly used for worship rituals inHindu temples. Fearing political backlash, Indira Gandhi's

government tried to have Prof. Oak's book withdrawn from thebookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the firstedition dire consequences. There is only one way to discreditor validate Oak's research.

The current government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal underU.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate.Please check this link ........it adds as a visual proofhttp://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm

Thank You.

Priya