Is Taj Mahal an ancient Lord Shiva Temple- Tejo Majalaya ?

Question

www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/tejo.html
www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html
www.neoalchemist.com/20030528/tejo-mahalaya
www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_one.htm

Even if you keep aside all this website references,
Read Swami Vivekananda's "My India the India Eternal" where he in a very different context says that "Man is the best amongst animals as is the Tajmahal amongst temple"

Answer 1

Pl go through this & you will get your answer.
No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N. Oak, who believes the
whole world has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal: The True Story, Oak says
the
Taj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of
Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya ) . In the course of his research O
ak discovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from
then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. In his own court ch ronicle,
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 began with the name of Taj Mahal. He says

the term " Mahal " has never been used for a building in any Muslim countries
from Afghanisthan to Algeria . "The unusual explanation that the term Taj
Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogical in 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 the building."Taj Mahal, he
claims, is a corrupt version of Tejo Mahalaya, or Lord Shiva's Palace . Oak
also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale cre ated
by
court sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy archaeologists Not a
single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the love story.

Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal predates
Shah Jahan's era, and was a temple dedicated to Shiva, 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 dating tests revealed
that the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan. European traveler Johan
Albert Mandelslo,who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven years after Mumtaz's
death), describes the life of the cit y 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 well before Shah Jahan's time.

Prof. 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 inaccessible to the public . Oak
asserts they contain a headless statue of Lord Shiva and other objects
commonly used for worship rituals in Hindu temples Fearing political
backlash, Indira Gandhi's government t ried to have Prof. Oak's book
withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the
first edition dire consequences . There is only one way to discredit or
validate Oak's research.

The current government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Ma hal under
U.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate.

Do circulate this to all you know and let them know about this reality.....

Answer 2

Have to read on what contest Vivekananda said "My India the India Eternal". Hope you are aware his famous addressing at Chicago conference "My Brothern and sisters", where he meant all as his brothers and sisters, irrespective of nationality caste or creed. Likewise he might have uttered something about Tajmahal also. However if he had told Tajmahal as a temple it is not at all acceptable. Even Muslims do not consider it as a temple. It is a tomb built on the grave of Beautiful Mumtaz Mahal,one of the many wives of Shah Jahan, on . So if Vivekananda has told it as a temple his writings are not acceptable.

Anyhow, Pauline is comparable to Mumtaz Mahal.

Answer 3

Sorry to correct you It is "Tejo Maha aalaya"
which means Tejas is = brightness
Maha = great
Aalaya = Temple
Great Bright temple. Even today the foundation of the shiva Temple lies under neath on which Taj Mahal has been built.
Pune Researcher shri P.N.Oak has done a lot of research on this site.

Answer 4

Even if it were a history, you should not try to reverse the history, for that will create tension. Conversion of a place of worship belonging to one faith into another has been going on in Indian history. Many Jain and Buddhist temples were converted to Hindu temples, in the course of the attempts by the reformists of the Hindu movement. In the play 'Julius Caesar' by GB Shaw, there is a scene. In Egypt, there is an incident wherein a famous library is set fire by the Roman forcces. Many are fretting and fuming about it. To a grieving character who laments over the loss of many a piece of history, Ceasar says that there is no use lamenting over the pieces of history, for according to him, the past history does not serve any purpose than kindling the old passion and create tension in the present. Let the past be buried in the embers of fire. Although that was a very extremen view, there is no gainsaying the fact that there is no point in romanticising the past and glorifying the history, simply for the reason that it relates to our ancestry.

Answer 5

Humayun started the Mughal dynasty. His son was Akbar.
Shahjahan - the king was son/grandson of Akbar I think. anyway
Humayun's tomb in New Delhi looks very much like the Taj Mahal except that it is made of brown stone. If you look at the tombs of other mughal dynasty kings/royalty after Taj Mahal- you can see the architectural style during that period evolve. so No historian really takes such stupid claims very seriously by some self serving illeterate idiot. Instead of being an armchair historian try doing something more useful in your life.

Answer 6

no taj mahal is not a lord shiva temple. it was built by mughal emperor shah jahan in the memory of his beloved wife mumtaz mahal. it is actually a tomb where both shah jahan and mumtaz mahal had been buried . it also depicts the love between them

Answer 7

who cares?? we see only what is today, history should be known only if it is necessary for development, not for destruction, so nothing will happen if it is an old Shiva temple or not!!
As it is , it is Taj Mahal the beautiful tomb constructed by an Indian king in remembrance of his wife and which generates lot of indians tourism revenue!!
So let it be as it is!!Do research in some usefull thing!!

Answer 8

Any indian might answer to u in the same way i am doing: NO, it is not a temple. It is a MAHAL(palace) built by SHAHJAHEN (an ancient indian emperor) for his beloved wife MUMTAZ and so it is also called as MUMTAZ MAHAL...

Answer 9

NO Taj Mahal was built by the muslim king Shah Jahan.

Answer 10

It was built by a Prince for his favourite wife. It is know as the greatest erection a man has ever given to a woman.