A Conversation for The Controversy Surrounding the Origins of the Taj Mahal

Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 1

Sikandar

Reading this supposedly informative piece about the Taj Mahal, you might suppose that there is some sort of legitimate debate about its origins. You would be wrong. Oak is a dangerous, hate-mongering charlatan with no academic credentials of any kind. His assertions are pure fantasy, on a par with those attention-seekers who claim to have been abducted by aliens. If the BBC is going to become a crank site for the promotion of crackpot theories like this, we might as well give up and allow the lunatics to take over the asylum. Anyone who has seen the tomb of Timur, the Gur-e Amir, in Samarkand (as I have) can see where the architectural lineage of the Taj and other Mughal tombs begins (does Oak make these claims about all Mughal tombs, or just the Taj, because it is more famous)? Last time I looked, few 'Hindu' buildings possessed domes, iwans, minars or were decorated with Koranic inscriptions.

Here are a few citations:

“Mughal architecture adopted from Timurid antecedents possesses a sense of grandeur and an extremely sophisticated understanding of how interconnecting and stacked transverse arches could be used in lieu of solid walls to create new spacial organizations. This resulted in structures with a large central room surrounded by smaller chambers and arched entranceways of various sizes. Such a plan is seen in the Timurid ‘Ishrat Khana, a dynastic mausoleum in Samarqand; it was built for women of the Timurid house and finished around 1464. Frequently imperial Mughal tombs were designed on a similar plan, specifically one consisting of nine bays. That is, a central chamber is surrounded by eight smaller rooms whose placement, size and shape depended on a geometric division of the whole. The Ak-serai tomb in Samarqand was of this type, as were some garden pavilions known from written descriptions. Other Timurid examples of this type include the khanqah of Qasim Shaikh in Kirman dated 1558-59 and the tomb of Ulug Beg Miranshah in Ghazni (d. 1506). Since the Architect of Humayun’s tomb, the first Timurid-inspired tomb in Mughal India, came from Bukhara, where he had designed a variety of building types, the Timurid inspiration for this and later Mughal tombs is not surprising” Catherine B. Asher "Architecture of Mughal India" New Cambridge History of India I.4 (Cambridge University Press) 1992 p16

“Some of the numerous artists who worked on the Taj Mahal are known from contemporary sources. Makramat Khan, later associated with the supervision of Shajahanabad, and ‘Abd al-Karim, a master architect in Jahangir’s reign and subsequently responsible for the Shah Burj in the Lahore Fort completed in 1631-2, supervised the project. Amanat Khan was the chief calligrapher. No architect’s name is recorded in the contemporary chronicles; however, a work by the poet Lutf Allah identifies the poet’s father, Ustad Ahmad, later Shahjahanabad’s architect, as the designer of Mumtaz Mahal’s tomb. Shah Jahan himself doubtless played a major role in the design and execution of this tomb, as he did in his other architectural enterprises. Possibly the emperor’s active role in design explains why Ustad Ahmad’s name is omitted in the official chronicle written by Lahauri”. Asher "Architecture of Mughal India" p212

“Mumtaz Mahal’s superbly proportioned mausoleum is seated on the centre of a high square marble plinth that elevates the tomb above the garden. The plinth is at the river’s edge, and to compensate for the effects of flooding it sits on deeply sunk wells. At each corner of the plinth is a four-storied marble minaret recalling those used in earlier Timurid funereal architecture, for example the Gur-i Amir at Samarqand, as well as at Jahangir’s tomb, whose construction was commenced by Shah Jahan only a few years before the Taj Mahal.[……]The Taj Mahal has often been likened to Humayun’s tomb, a building essentially Timurid in character and designed by an architect trained in the Timurid homeland. This form, quite different from more nearly contemporary multi-tiered Mughal tombs, was probably adopted because Shah Jahan was immensely proud of his Timurid ancestry (upon his accession, remember, he adopted the very titles used by Timur.” Asher "Architecture of Mughal India" p213

“…..evidence suggests it [The Taj Mahal] was designed by Ustad Isa Khan Effendi, a Persian masterbuilder from Shiraz, who assigned the detailed work to his gifted pupil Ustad Ahmed. The dome was designed by Ismail Khan. The tomb, which is higher than a modern twenty-storey building, took twenty-two years to complete with a workforce of 20,000. Craftsmen and masterbuilders came from all over Asia to join in the great work - from Baghdad, Shiraz, Delhi, Samarkand and Turkey…..” Philip Davies "The Penguin Guide to the Monuments of India" (London: Allen Lane) 1989 Vol. II p193

Clearly the Taj Mahal does incorporate many local influences (which you can define as ‘Hindu’ if you want to, though I would prefer to say Indian) such as the choice of material (white marble, rather than brick and glazed tiles as it would have been in Iran or Central Asia) and, most obviously, the Chhatris around the dome, whose slightly onion-shaped profile is also a development away from the Timurid ribbed half-globular form. The 'sealed chambers' Oak and his supporters bang on about are nothing more than structural elements of the building, supporting the multi-chambered structure above (see the description of Timurid buildings in Asher's book). The fact that the Taj Mahal a) was built by Shah Jahan as a tomb for his wife and b) represents the apotheosis of Iranian and Timurid architecture in India, is not a matter for dispute amongst scholars. I am neither Muslim, nor Hindu, and have no axe to grind here. Some British commentators in the 19th century used to argue that the Taj was designed by an Italian, because they refused to accept that any ‘Asiatic’ could have designed such a masterpiece. Do we give this ‘point of view’ the time of day any more? No, because it has been rightly discredited as Imperialist nonsense. Oak’s rantings belong in a similar category, and to suggest that they warrant any sort of consideration is lazy intellectual relativism which takes no account of scholarly opinion. Oak and his Hindutva-mongering supporters aren’t interested in the truth, they’re only interested in pushing through a hate-filled political agenda, arguing that Muslims have made no significant contributions to the culture and civilisation of the subcontinent in order to justify depriving them of political rights or even expelling them from India (yes, there are lunatics who think that 130 million muslims are simply going to disappear or leave, or who even contemplate forced conversion). As such his views on the origins of the Taj Mahal are part of a much wider, sinister political discourse of exclusion.


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 2

Sikandar

.....And if you don't believe me, just look at some of the other responses this 'guide' has attracted. There is a lot of hate out there, and a lot of dribbling insanity. So, the Ka'aba and the Madras High Court were also Vedic Temples once upon a time, were they? I think that helps put Oak's 'research' into proper perspective.


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 3

avianisha

Dear Sikandar,

Not to disgrace you or your religion, but it is funny the way you reacted to Professor Oak's findings or claims. What makes you so insecure? And what are you exactly trying to prove by writing about the architectural prowess of muslim buildings like mausoleum in Samarqand?

What you have cited from Asher "Architecture of Mughal India" p212 & Philip Davies "The Penguin Guide to the Monuments of India" (London: Allen Lane) 1989 Vol. II p193 , is the point Professor Oak is making...indian history has been distorted. And whole purpose of his work is to set this right.

From your posting 2 things are evident. Either you know that Taj Mahal was Tejo Mahalaya but you dont want to accept it (thus such irrational and illogical postings)...or you are too obsessed with whatever religion you practice and dont really want to see things from a rational perspective...whatever!

Dont know about Madras High Court, but Kaaba was also a hindu temple. Please "shower some kindness dear brother sikander"...answer the following questions for me

1)Have you seen the top floors of the building (Taj), the rooms have been stripped off the marbel slabs which your 'great builder' used for preparing the masoulem of mumtaz...i recommend u visit Stephen Knaap's website.
2) How do u explain the presence of lotus and kalash on the pinnacle of Taj?
3) what is the logic of the no. 786 on Quran?
4) why do u guys attach religious values to the stone that is lying there covered in silver?
5) and pls you got to answer this one...why the hell u guys circumabulate the stone? In hinduism we have the practice of circumabulating aroud 'idols'...yeh! that is what u wud call...does this mean u have started copying our religion now?
6) what is the logic of carrying the water of the zum zum fountain...u consider to be holy? Well, for your kind information it is only in hindu religion that we have story of holy river Ganga...

I need some solid foundation and not another illogical posting...just lashing out your anger...i understand nobody would like to let go the credit of being builders of one of the seven wonders on this planet...but you have to accept the truth. All in all, you are frustrated and agitated...it is natural brother...so relax! and u r welcome to blabber as much u want on this forum.

Kudos!

I support professor Oak's findings!!...i think it was evident from my post, but still couldnt stop commeding his great work



Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 4

Sikandar

Guess what? I'm not a Muslim. No doubt that surprises you, because in your twisted little world people never say anything without some kind of hate-filled religious agenda. You took one look at my nickname, decided that it was Muslim, and hence decided to ignore everything I'd written and simply attribute the same religious bigotry to me which clearly informs everything you write. If you think Asher's account of the architectural influences on the Taj is part of some long-standing historical conspiracy, then dream on. the only conspiracy theorist around here is that dangerous nutter Oak (hmmm - I wonder why he has to publish his books himself - maybe because no reputable university or academic press will touch them). I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue here as you clearly aren't open to ideas that don't fit with the most extreme forms of Hindutva. One thing still puzzles me though - where does this exaggerated feeling of victimhood come from? You guys are nearly always Chitpavan Brahmins or Banias from Gujarat, not exactly the most needy members of Indian society. And yet you spend your time attacking Muslims, one of the poorest and most deprived groups in the Indian population. And that really isn't very nice.


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 5

inathg

wow..all i have to say is this guy sikandar is really stupid.. n bringing up an argument for no reason.. where did a crazy fanatic hindutva come into question.
the fact is that hindus have always bin a very tolerant religion unlike islam.. n its jst really sad if u are infact a hindu or anyother religion because you are just not willing to look at things with a different view.
the truth about the taj mahal was that the congress and the british govt hid it to appease minorities.
Oak's views have no credibility and yours do?


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 6

Sikandar

If it were just my views, you might have a point. Unfortunately the entire international academic community knows that the Taj Mahal is a Mughal monument, with a mixture of Persian, Timurid and Indian architectural influences, built by Shah Jahan as a mausoleum for his wife. There is no conspiracy, nothing has been 'hidden'. You may have noticed that, unlike the other posters here, I have actually put some quotations from reputable academic sources on the architectural influences on the Taj. Oak's views have no credibility because he has no evidence to support them. His agenda is simply informed by hate.


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 7

inathg

on what basis do u claim that oak's views have been influenced by hate? Have you ever read stephan knapp's analysis on the issue? he doesnt have a hindu motive. I am not completely disregarding the fact that it was built by Taj Mahal. The fact is that muslims plundered hindu temples and built mosques there. Taj can well be one of these examples. There is only one way to put to rest this controversy and that is not going to happen anytime in the future. As for the international community, they say that the taj has the influences you are talking about. i have 2 arguments.
one is that they are made to believe like all of us indians what we have been taught throughout our lives.
Second, the influences you are talking about could have come from when the taj was modified by the moghuls.


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 8

Sikandar

There you go again "they are made to believe like all of us Indians". I must say you clearly have a very low opinion of your countrymen's intelligence over the last three hundred-odd years, not to mention their capacity for independent thought. Funny how nobody 'noticed' that the Taj was 'actually' a Hindu temple until the rise of Hindutva politics. I can say with confidence that Oak's views are informed by hate because I have read his books. His overarching aim in all the bilge he and his self-styled 'Institute for re-writing Indian History' have spewed forth is to deny that Muslims have made any significant contribution to the culture and civilisation of the Subcontinent, in order to provide a pretext for their forced conversion or expulsion. That is the political message he is sending out here when he claims that the Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple, and it is a sickening one. Stephen Knapp is a Hare Krishna crank, and to claim that there is no 'Hindu' motive in the rubbish he puts up on his website is laughable. There is no international 'conspiracy' to pull the wool over Indians' eyes: I am talking about a serious scholarly consensus on the architectural inspirations for the Taj and the reasons for and dates of its construction, expressed in numerous books published by reputable academic presses and written by scholars working at top universities (Harvard, Oxford, JNU), none of whom would even give this hate-filled crackpot 'theory' that it was once a Hindu temple the time of day. You only have to compare the Taj with pictures of Iranian and Central Asian buildings (as well as the tomb of Itmiad ud-Daula in Agra) to see what its architectural antecedents are. As for the Taj being 'modified' by the Moghuls - have you ever actually visited it? It is so blindingly obvious that this is an architectural masterpiece conceived and built as a single whole in the late 17th century that if you can't see it, I can only conclude that you too are blinded by religious bias.


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 9

inathg

first of all i really don't give a shit what u conclude about religious bias or not.
its true that congress has written indian history books to suit their own political agenda and congress is a minority kiss up party just trying to fill their vote bank.
hate filled crack pot theory? how can you just assume something just because its against your lousy opinion which honestly no one gives a shit about.yeah iv been to the taj many times and by modifying i meant writing stuff from the quran and claims of mumtazs grave over there.
hows it obvious by looking at it that it was built in the 17th century? have you gone and carbon dated the stone there yourself?
Stephen Knapp is a hare krishan crank and your not an intolerant muslim like most of your community..
ohh wait a minute you are not muslim or hindu but just downright ignorant.


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 10

Sikandar

I'm not a Muslim. Hard to accept for one of your ilk, I realise, but there it is. As I said before, for you and your kind this is all about religion, not about objective academic analysis. Look at pictures of the Gur-e Amir in Samarkand, Humayun's tomb, the Royal Mosque in Esfahan, and the architectural lineage of the Taj is clear. Think for a minute about what you've written about Carbon-dating stone. This will tell you precisely nothing except, perhaps, the period, aeons ago, when that stone was formed from magma. Carbon-dating only works with pottery and other man-made materials which have been subjected to intense heat in the manufacturing process, but I'm not terribly surprised that you didn't know that, as it is typical of the malicious myth-making surrounding this ridiculous "Tejo Mahalya" business. My opinion isn't very relevant here: that of the authors I have cited, who are recognised experts in their field, most certainly is. Perhaps this passage from Bernier, written in 1663, might persuade you

"I shall finish this letter with a description of the two wonderful mausoleums which constitute the chief superiority of Agra over Delhi. One was erected by Jehan-guyre [sic] in honour of his father Ekbar [sic]; and Chah-Jehan [sic] raised the other to the memory of his wife Tage Mehale, that extraordinary and celebrated beauty, of whom her husband was so enamoured it is said that he was constant to her during life, and at her death was so affected as nearly to follow her to the grave"

François Bernier "Letter to Monsieur de la Mothe le Vayer. Written at Dehli [sic] the first of July 1663" Travels in the Moghul Empire A.D. 1656-1668 (Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co.) 1891 p293

I have cited detailed evidence to support the universally accepted fact that the Taj Mahal is an Islamic mausoleum. You can produce nothing but abuse, hearsay and half-baked conspiracy theories to contradict this. That says it all, I think.


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 11

karnas

Mr.Sikander,
i read ur post and alos of other guys too.
it seems from conversation between u & him. That ur making it issue of religion and also political.
But i would like u to answer if u r pretending to know everything about graet monuments muslims have made.

so pls just answer about Mr.Oak questions leave other things aside and just answer his question that he has put up, in straight manner.
i would definetly like to hear it from u.

1. how the direction of the mosque does not point toward Mecca as most mosques do; the real purpose of the minarets at the Taj; the Hindu symbolism recognized in the Taj which would not have been allowed if it was truly Muslim built; and even as late as 1910 the Encyclopaedia Britannica included the statement by Fergusson that the building was previously a palace before becoming a tomb for Shah Jahan; and more.

2.Why Many rooms in the Taj Mahal have remained sealed since Shah Jahan's time, and are still inaccessible to the public.

3.How could The Letter of Aurangzeb ordering repairs on the old Taj Mahal in the year just before it is said to have been completed.

4. This is the massive octagonal well with palatial apartments along its seven stories. A royal staircase descends right down to the water level indicated by the tiny white patch showing the sun's reflection.

This was the traditional treasury well of the Hindu temple palace. Treasure chests used to be stacked in the lower stories. Accountants, cashiers and treasurers sat in the upper stories. Cheques called handies used to be issued from here. On being besieged, if the building had to be surrendered to the enemy, the treasure used to be pushed into the water for salvage later after recapture. For real research, water should be pumped out of this well to reveal the evidence that lies at the bottom. This well is inside a tower near the so-called mosque to the west of the marble Taj. Had the Taj been a mausoleum this octagonal multistoried well would have been superfluous.

5. A close up of the upper portion of the pinnacle of the Taj Mahal, photographed from the parapet beneath the dome. The Hindu horizontal crescent and the coconut top together look like a trident from the garden level. Islamic crescents are always oblique. Moreover they are almost always complete circles leaving a little opening for a star. This Hindu pinnacle had all these centuries been misinterpreted as an Islamic crescent and star or a lightning conductor installed by the British. The word "Allah" etched here by Shahjahan is absent in the courtyard replica. The coconut, the bent mango leaves under it and the supporting Kalash (water pot) are exclusive Hindu motifs.

6.he full scale figure of the pinnacle on the dome has been inlaid on the red stone courtyard of the Taj Mahal. One may see it to the east at the foot of the riverside arch of the flanking building wrongly dubbed as Jamiat Khana (community hall) by Muslim usurpers. Such floor sketches in courtyards are a common Hindu trait. In Fatehpur Sikri it is the backgammon board which is sketched on a central courtyard. The coconut top and the bent mango leaves underneath, resting on a kalash (i.e. a water pot) is a sacred Hindu motif. Hindu shrines in the Himalayan foothills have identical pinnacles [especially noticed at Kedarnath, a prominent Shiva temple]. The eastern location of the sketch is also typically Hindu. The length measures almost 32 ft.

7. These corridors at the approach of the Taj Mahal are typically Hindu. They may be seen in any ancient Hindu capital. Note the two octagonal tower cupolas at the right and left top. Only Hindus have special names for the eight directions and celestial guards assigned to each. Any octagonal feature in historic buildings should convince the visitor of their Hindu origin. Guards, palanquin bearers and other attendants resided in hundreds of rooms along numerous such corridors when the Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple palace. Thus the Taj was more magnificent and majestic before it was reduced to a sombre Islamic cemetery.

8. This Naqqar Khana alias Music House in the Taj Mahal garden is an incongruity if the Taj Mahal were an Islamic tomb. Close by on the right is the building which Muslims claim to be a mosque. The proximity of a mosque to the Music House is incongruous with Muslim tradition. In India, Muslims have a tradition of pelting stones on Hindu music processions passing over a mosque. Moreover a mausoleum needs silence. A dead person's repose is never to be disturbed. Who would then provide a band house for a dead Mumtaz? Contrarily Hindu temples and palaces have a music house because morning and evening Hindu chores begin to the sweet strains of sacred music.

Till now just answer above questions

I am definetly waiting for ur answer and particulary Q.8(did shah jahan want to celebrate his wife's death i thinks that why he build Naqqar Khanna ?
Dont miss any buddy

Also last thing did Shahjahan has got only one wife ?
but history said something else that every moughal emperor use to carry Janankhana with them, leave beside the counting of wifes u will definately fail


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 12

Sikandar

Most of your "questions" can be answered by the simple reply that the Taj Mahal is an Indian building built by an Indian ruler. Of course it shows the influence of other Indian buildings as well as those of its Timurid and Persian predecessors.

1. The direction of the mosque - clearly architectural symmetry mattered more to Shah Jahan than theological correctness (it would be nice if that were true of some of maniacs who've been posting on this board). The position of the Taj and its flanking buildings is dictated by the course of the Jumna

2. There are no sealed rooms - there are deep wells under the plinth (which all Mughal tombs possess) to guard against flooding from the river.

3.Aurangzeb's letter - all new buildings (especially those on the scale of the Taj) reveal construction and other problems which have to be rectified soon after they're finished. You wouldn't believe the number of problems which had to be repaired in the new Scottish Parliament Building after it was supposedly 'finished'

4.What exactly is 'Hindu' about a well? There is a step well at Mehrauli built by one of the Afghan rulers of Delhi, and another at Lucknow built by the Nawabs next to the great Imambara. Surviving "Hindu" palaces at Vijayanagara and Gwalior do not possess such wells, and the idea that they would be used as a treasury is absurd. In any case I'm not even sure that what you're referring to is a well at all. The Taj is built above numerous deep pits to guard against flooding (cf. Asher above).

5. The "Trident" Oh please! Shah Jahan is supposed to have taken over a 'Hindu Palace or Temple' (funny nobody knows which, the argument changes all the time) 'disguised it' as an Islamic building covered in Koranic inscriptions, and yet left several 'Hindu Symbols' in place, including a fifteen-foot high finial! Seems an unlikely oversight, don't you think? As a matter of fact we know that the finial was cast by Qazim Khan, a Native of Lahore, so it is scarcely surprising that he includes traditional Indian decorative elements such as the kalash, but it is entirely erroneous to attribute any religious significance to this.

6. See above. The Taj Mahal is an Indian monument. The fact that it is a Mughal mausoleum does not make it any less Indian than your imaginary 'Hindu' temple/palace would be.

7."Typically Hindu Corridors", Well I'd love to see one of those. Are they painted saffron perhaps, with pictures of Nathuram Godse lining the walls, alternating with Bal Thackeray? See above again. You're living in a fantasy world. And lots of buildings in Iran and Central Asia have octagonal forms, it is not a specifically 'Hindu' design element. You forget that the whole of North India, Iran and Turkestan have had strong cultural connections for centuries, before the coming of Islam, and the Taj draws upon all of these traditions.

8. The Music House - Here you reveal once and for all your ignorance of the purposes and use of Mughal Garden tombs. They are not cemeteries or burning-ghats, they were intended to be used as pleasure-gardens as well, where the living could remember the dead, but rejoice in life at the same time. Why bother with a char-bagh at all otherwise? The gardens around the Taj, Humayun's tomb, and Safdar Jang's tomb were all used in this way until the 19th century, and in the case of the latter they still are. There is nothing inconsistent about having a Naqqar-Khana in a garden-tomb complex.

Finally - Shah Jahan had more than one wife, as all rulers did in that period, but he does seem to have cared for Mumtaz Mahal to a much higher degree than was normal at the time (hence the story Bernier repeated, only a few years after the Taj's completion, which I've quoted above).

You've accused me of introducing religion into this discussion: you don't seem averse to doing that yourself, with your nasty remarks about 'Muslim usurpers', but it was Oak who had to turn this loveliest of monuments into a religious battleground by spreading unsubstantiated lies about its origin, and demanding to be allowed to destroy it in order to 'prove' his theories. I have a piece of advice for you, and for all the other posters on this board who seem to think that only by claiming that the Taj is a 'Hindu' building can they accept it as part of their heritage. It is an Indian building. Stop thinking of yourselves as Hindu or Muslim, and instead think of yourselves as Indian. You will be a lot happier, trust me. Communalism kills.


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 13

trueinca



hi all. a seemingly simple argument has been blown out of proportion here. ok. 1st of all, i am assuming the writers above are all indians. guys... take a chill pill. u are worrying urself over a trivial matter. after all that is said and done, wat remains now is the monument which brings into india the much needed tourism money, filling the stomachs of a large no. of ppl in agra.


as sikander rightly pointed out, tere wil be ppl everywere trying to get their share of limelite. but i do feel sikander reacted strongly to prof.Oak's theories. chill dude!


and as for the others, all i wanna say is tat sikander has nt said anythin damaging about hinduism. he is only reflecting facts. facts which have been accepted by the international community. i am nt sayin that these facts are unquestionable, but even if they are, who cares?


i kno i have written something totally irrelevant here. but it is only because i felt that as indians, we shud nt get divided again.



Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 14

haritsharma

Hi...

One more question I would like to ask here is that if you say that Taj Mahal has been derived out of the name of Mumtaaz Mahal....then why 'z' was replaced...means it should have been Taz Mahal in the first place and not Taj Mahal.....any logical reasons behind that???


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 15

Sikandar

There are two possible reasons. One is the simple one that "z" and "j" are easily interchangeable in Hindi (you often hear people say "jindagi" rather than "zindagi" in dialect, for instance: this is because the "z" sound only occurs in words of Persian or Arabic origin, and can be difficult for non-Urdu speakers to pronounce). The other is that "Taj" means "crown" in Persian, and it is a reference either to the building itself as the crown of all architectural achievement, or the title Mumtaz enjoyed within the palace in Agra.


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 16

Dhruv9

Well this has been an interesting read to say the very least. I agree with a lot of the things that Sikander has said here over the past few days. I feel that there is no need for any of us to go flying off on a tangent and start attacking religions left, right and centre. In my opinion, Oak's views are complete bunkum and are just a means of getting attention. (as are some of the daft posts in here)
The one about "Typically Hindu Corridors" especially had me in splits.


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 17

Amitg11

Hi guys...

Atleast someone tells me why some of the rooms are still closed for public.. can't the government intervent to unearth the truth as claimed by the professor


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 18

mayavi22

Maybe you are right, sikander. What i suggest is to put pressure on the government to open the 'sealed chambers' and have a look inside... Then we will know, won't we?smiley - smiley


Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Post 19

rainglobalist

Hi everybody,
I don't think this matter needs no more queries. think of this if taj mahal is a mausoleum what is the need to investigate? if it is tejo mahalaya then it ll be proven of hindu origin. May be Mr oak is right. But what is the use in it? muslims of india and other country wont believe it and this ll become an international problem between india and muslim countries. I think the govt is right in this matter. Because what is the use of lossing lives in war for a building. have anybody seen mumbai bomb blast. these type of incidents ll increase in future like these type of problems. And i think shah jahan has no intention in making the people believe it is of muslim origin only. Because he doesn't ve faintest idea of seven wonders of the world and taj mahal being one among them.
But i ve one doubt. i got the mail regarding this in yahoo groups. it is mentioning that taj mahal to be inspected on the supervision of U.S. What is the reason of having U.s as a supervisor. I suspect U.s intelligence in this? i.e Divide and rule. Why do you people fight for this?


Removed

Post 20

VHPRSS

This post has been removed.


Key: Complain about this post

Oak's views have no credibility whatsoever.

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more