in ancient days(befor Sahjahan era)was Tajmahel a hindu mandir(temple)?

Answer 1

How does it matter? I think it's high time we started worrying about our country today and the dead end we're heading towards thanks to our religious sentiments fanned by vested interests rather than go back centuries. Even if a temple had existed on the site where the Taj is do you think someone should go about demolishing such a beautiful historical heritage?

Answer 2

No Not for sure
Its just a hoax, It is such a great peace of Art that's the reason,
people want to put a black mark on it.
There could be a temple just a small hut like temple, i say this because there is a River Yamuna and in olden days people use to build temples around rivers.
But it is not certainly build on top of a temple.

Answer 3

NOTE THE FOLLOWING

1-THE STRUCTURE IS ON THE BAKS OF RIVER
2-IT IS CALLED A "MAHAL"
3-NO ISLAM STRUCTUTES IS CALED AS "MAHAL"

4-IT HAS GOT A UN DISCOVERED PORE WHRE THE WATER LEAKS: IT IS NOT A DEFECT BUT A FEATURE PROVIDED FOR WATERING (NORMALLY WATER IS POURED OVER HINDU IDOLS/LING.
5-THE EMPORESR WERE NOT CONFINED TO ONE FEMALE BUT MNY SOME WIFES SOME KEEPS, SOME SEX SLAVES.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT IN MEMORY OF ONE LADY , A MONUMENT WAS BUILT IN 22 YEARS .
6- THE GOPUR (TOP) RESEMBLES THAT OF MANY VEDIK HINDU TEMPLES.

IN VIEW OF THE AND MANY MORE , I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS ORIGINALLY A TEMPLE

Answer 4

I had visited the site near the Yamuna. There is no chance of any mandir.

Answer 5

in accordance to Judaism YHVH develop into purely spoken interior the indoors chamber by the severe priest. Many cultures at that element stored the call of their God sacred & did no longer pronoun it different than for particular occassions. i haven't heard something approximately being positioned to dying. That looks like a solid addition of city legion. there is no real debate approximately virgin. The Torah makes use of a various observe someplace else while virgin is meant. that's hopeful thinking that almah meant the two. a youthful woman ought to (take place to of course, as ought to an previous one) be a virign, yet while that develop into substantial to the context, Betulah (spelling?) could have been used. Almah merely meant youthful woman & some Chrisitian variations of OT are changing to accomodate that correction. Jehovah is a glaring invention in that J isn't in Hebrew. W isn't the two & have been given extra by German translation the place W is pronounced V. there develop into addition of vowel dageshes (sounds) extra to the 4 letters YHVH yet they have been those for adonai, to remind human beings to subtitute pronounciation. i do no longer understand the timing of while those have been extra. ========== i've got seen very, very those days a blending up of Jehovah with Yeshua, i.e. Jesus. it relatively is merely human beings no longer understanding that they are diverse words from diverse aspects, even however they have fairly comparable sounds. Jehovah is a German observe for God then translated into English years in the past. Yeshua is an attempt to alter from Jesus in Greek to Hebrew, used to make human beings greater happy interior the previous few years religiously. ============== i develop into merely staring at a practice on PBS this evening that cites a lot of archeological evidence of the Israelites. the vast "debate" interior the middle develop into the size & timing of the domicile of David. by way of some diverse archeological unearths, including a Syrian one, they pinpoint it to the time distinctive interior the Bible. This timing mattered because of the fact it positioned the vast kingdom form findings with David thereby proving that certainly there develop into one super Israel at one time, & no longer purely a team of tribes. The practice wasn't that complementary altogether, so it wasn't leaning over to coach something right here.

Answer 6

No, Before Taj Mahal, It was an empty space over there.

Answer 7

He was 28 years was only busy to make Taj Mahal only.

Answer 8

in acient time before shahjahan era there was no taj mahal it was shahjahan who built tajmahal for his wife

Answer 9

No. Because Shahjahan built it during his tenure.
rajandaniel60

Answer 10

no... it was empty space there...as far as i know...nd then shahjahan made it for mumtaz... i guess tht property was owned by shahjahan before taj mahal... but i m not 100% percent sure... can't tell u for sure...