h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I would think that “Taj” in Taj Mahal did not come from “Mumtaz”. Taj also means Royal. Taj Mahal only means Royal Mansion. Mr. Oak admits that the Badshah-nama refers to “an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion”.

As for ancient Shiva temple having existed there, it is very common in India to have a prayer room in the house. As a Hindu, I have always had a prayer room in my house. It is possible that the prayer room of a Maharaja’s mansion was more elaborate than that of the common man. Then again, in a country where we build temples right in the middle of a road, is it surprising that one may have existed there?

Algeria to Afghanistan was ruled by Muslim rulers. We were ruled by Moghuls not Muslims. The difference is that Moghul culture and tradition is a mixture of Aryan and Islamic cultures. It is true that Moghuls destroyed temples when they invaded India. This was because their religion is opposed to idol worship. To say that they did it for burying the dead is stretching the argument a bit too far.

Any one who has seen Moghul architecture knows that it was common in those days to mix Arabian & Indian styles. The Taj is no different. For that matter, mixing different styles of architecture is common in all parts of the world.

Carbon dating? Give me a break! If we carbon dated the wooden door at my old house in Madras, it would show an age of many hundred years and its origin can possibly be traced to forests of Mysore. That does not mean Emperor Tipu Sultan built my house!

Travelogues of foreign travellers? Why should Johan Albert Mandelslo or Peter Mundy have known of Shah Jahan’s plans? May be they knew that some mausoleum was being built but never guessed the grandeur of Shah Jahan’s plan.

How does Mr. Oak know that the sealed rooms, which no one has ever visited, have a headless statue? There are many famous Hindu temples in India with sealed rooms which have not been opened for years and years. If we followed Mr. Oak’s logic, we should be tearing down all these temples.

To my mind, there is no issue here. The Taj is a marvel and we Indians are and should be proud of it.

The best and the most sensible response to the article. Thank you

Dont know what it means.Does that mean Oak claims that Shahjahan took over a Hindu monument did some patchwork and put Islamic inscription on the Hindu structure.

Well, if that is the case,this is also a great feat in engineering.Kudos to Shahjahan.

If I were to believe Oak, only Hindus had culture,civilisation and engineering and aesthetic grandeur.All others are cave dwellers.If one has read his research on Tejo (sorry Taj), one can also read "Christianity is Krishna neeti" and get some wonderous insights on the Christ.

Really, it frustrates me to see articles and space wasted on web and print for propoganda archaeology.Oak even says the festival of Shab e Barat in India - Meelad un Nabi (in Arabic) stands for Shivaratri..Come one grow up mate!!

Admitted that some Muslim buildings in India have used components of other religious structures.But who is holier than thou??If one finds Hindu motifs in some other structures - it can be attributed to the masons and labourers who were for a large part Hindu and this is how Indo-Saracenic architecture evolved - Muslim plan and Hindu execution.

One of the greatest and largest monuments in Spain is the mosque of Cordoba that has been converted into church...Have Muslims launched a campaign asking it to be reconverted?No because they dont have this Oakian type complex.

The very first thing the muslim invaders did after looting and killing of hindus was to destroy worship places of hindus because they hated the most was hindu god still this feeling can be found in all muslims all over the world they respect only their god and they consider their method of worship as the best.
More facts can be found on the web link
[Broken link removed by Moderator] - 21k -

This post has been removed.

[Broken link removed by Moderator]

I am ashamed you call yourself hindu.

Sorry! This message was for justlogix

justlogix,
u need to get a new door for your house which you claim goes back to tipu sultan..
too cheap to get a new door?

Huh. U r worse than the unruly muslim invaders.

syed,
the mosque at cordoba was converted back to a cathedral because muslims plundered the church and converted into a mosque in the first place. it was the right thing to do. if christians could do it in spain why cant we do it in India?

Ever been to Cordoba? No, I thought not. It was built as a mosque, and there is no evidence that there was ever a church on that site. Subsequently a rather ugly 16th-century cathedral was inserted into the middle of it, but fortunately the Spanish left most of the mosque intact, and it is that which visitors, Spanish and otherwise, come to see today, because it is one of the great architectural masterpieces of the world. I'm a Christian by the way, not that I imagine anyone on this forum for religious bigotry will believe me.

how do u just come up with conclusions about me not having been to cordoba. can you see things in other peoples lives without even knowing them? I have been to cordoba not once but many times. i lived in the city of granada. so stop coming up with stupid assumptions.
the site where the mezquita is today.. was first a roman temple and then a visigothic monastery. when the berbers came to spain they destroyed the monastery and built the mosque which was later coverted into a cathedral. get your facts right and dont come up with stupid assumptions.

Apologies - one tends to assume that everyone on this thread is arguing from a position of ignorance. However, the notion that it is somehow "right" to destroy beautiful religious buildings because a building dedicated to another faith once stood on the same spot hundreds of years before is ugly, dangerous and profoundly immoral. Why can't we just take pleasure in such masterpieces as they stand?

I think every one is taking it too personal. I would suggest let Dr Oak complete his research. I am noit saying that he is correct but right now we cannot even say that he is wrong.

This post has been removed.

PLEASE CHECK YOUR
HISTORY MR SIKANDER, if you did you would realise that the KAABA does not belong
to the MUSLIMS nor was influenced by muslim art in any form whatsoever. However
the mosque built around the KAABA is 100% indeed islamic in every way. If you
knew your history you would realise the KAABA belongs to the polytheists
(belevers of more than one god) which is those days were arab tribal gods. The
KAABA was CAPTURED and the idols which were kept inside were destroyed by the
muslims. The muslims appreciated the structure they decided to keep it and build
the mosque around it. Whatever you have been tought about the kaaba 'the black
stone' just remeber it was never islamic. Also remeber 90% of mosques built in
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were built on top of a Temple. Thus there
probably is truth to the taj mahal story. All the mohul empire had to do was
build a structure around the temple and inscribe it with!
verses of the quran and all would beleive it was an Islamic building. Whatever
the story may be I just wanted to inform you about the origins of the KAABA as
you seem to think it is Islamic in origin.