Taj Mahal is said to be the Hindu Shiva Temple named as Tejo Mahalya. Is it true?

Answer 1

This is a new trend now a days to claim like this.
Pro B J P thinkers are working for new history.

Answer 2

> Taj Mahal is said to be the Hindu Shiva Temple named as Tejo Mahalya. Is it true?

No. It's myth fabricated by Purushottam Nagesh Oak, a controversial Indian writer associated with the radical Hindu nationalist movement, and founder of the "Institute for Rewriting Indian History". He claims that the Taj Mahal was originally a Shiva temple and that all structures in India, currently ascribed to the Mughals, actually have an earlier Hindu origin. (He also claims that both Islam and Christianity originated as "distortions" of Hindu Vedic beliefs, and that many religious buildings all over the world, like the the Vatican in Rome, the Kaaba in Mecca, and Stonehenge were also "Hindu temples or palaces".)

In 2000 India's Supreme Court dismissed Oak's petition to declare that a Hindu king built the Taj Mahal and reprimanded him for bringing the action.

In 2005 a similar petition was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. This case was brought by Amar Nath Mishra, a social worker and preacher who says that the Taj Mahal was built by the Hindu King Parmar Dev in 1196.

Conclusion : The Mughal Emperor Shāh Jahān commissioned the Taj Mahal as a mausoleum for his favourite wife, Mumtaz Mahal.Construction began in 1632 and was completed in 1648.

The only *serious* controversy about the Taj Mahal is the question of who *designed* the Taj. "It is clear a team of designers and craftsmen were responsible for the design, with Ustad Ahmad Lahauri considered the most likely candidate as the principal designer." ("Taj Mahal", Wikipedia)

Answer 3

Yes , I have heard this too. Do you really believe in this? Do you want to dig that building and destroy it or demolish it. Even its true and there was a temple then I would fight to preserve Taj mahal. TRUTH IS THAT Its a tomb for late shahjahan and mumtaj. What ever their love story behind creation of Taj mahal is I really do not care. But its true that is built by mugals and best building I have ever seen. Sad they have mismanaged and lots of thugs around Taj trying to make tourist fool. Spartan

Answer 4

It may be possible, bcos evidences shows that thousands of temples destroyed by Moghuls, Persians,Mongols, etc., and they built Mosques over that. But, Taj mahal is not a Shiva Temple, the place where taj mahal exists might be after the destroying of shiva temple.

Answer 5

might desire to study on what contest Vivekananda suggested "My India the India everlasting". wish you're conscious his well-known addressing at Chicago convention "My Brothern and sisters", the place he meant all as his brothers and sisters, regardless of nationality caste or creed. Likewise he might have uttered some thing approximately Tajmahal additionally. even if if he had advised Tajmahal as a temple that's never suited. Even Muslims do no longer evaluate it as a temple. that's a tomb equipped on the grave of eye-catching Mumtaz Mahal,between the various better halves of Shah Jahan, on . So if Vivekananda has advised it as a temple his writings are no longer suited. anyhow, Pauline is comparable to Mumtaz Mahal.

Answer 6

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

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 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 created 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 city 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 tried 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 Mahal under

U.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate.

Answer 7

Deffinately Yes !!!

Taj Mahal was a Shiv Temple. It's Name was "Shiv Tejo Mahalaya"
Jab Shahazahan ki Bibi ki Mot hui to usane uski body ko Shiv Tejo Mahalaya me dafan kiya aur use Taj Mahal naam de diya.
Taj Mahal koi Prem Ka pratik nahi hai. Wah to Hindu Dharm ke prati shahzahan ki nafarat ka pratik hai.

Answer 8

No it isn't. Taj Mahal is a tomb built under Shahjahan's orders. Look at the architecture, it is distinctly Mughal.

Answer 9

Yes, it is true.
I have heard,that there were some statues found which belongs to Hindu culture,such as statues of gods and goddesses.
Muslims have faith in one god.then why this happened.
I have also read at some place that Muslims had never constructed single building in India.
The Kutubminar was also a Hindu Temple,i have read,as there was founded some statues of gods by an scientist of history.
i don't have proof but i can only say if Ur question is true then whole Truth must come to light.

Answer 10

It's a tomb ...The Mughal Emperor Shāh Jahān commissioned it as a mausoleum for his favorite wife, Mumtaz Mahal.

It's also created in a Muslim architecture, not Hindu

Answer 11

Bah ! no..who said that? Taj is just a symbol of love & true love from King Shahjahan to queen Mumtaz. It's a monument & one among the seven wonders of love.