Taj Mahal joins 7 Wonders of the World

[yoda]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

Cant be bothered. There is just way too much junk in the first 6 points I read.

i agree with shwetabh. what bullshit facts are these? my eyes rolled back so much from reading the first 10 points that i got a lovely view of my brain, small as it may be. some propaganda driven hogwash put forward by an anti-Muslim jackass. you are trying to sell me THIS as fact???

4.Since the lady's name was Mumtaz (ending with 'Z') the name of the building derived from her should have been Taz Mahal, if at all, and not Taj (spelled with a 'J').

Wah. look i am a Hindu, i pray every day, i say my shlokas, i have my reservations about some things in the Muslim world....but this hate driven anti-Muslim tirade i will refuse to give more than a sneering glance. it makes US look bad, to say the least, to be giving credence to these pathetic rants.

Couldn't agree more. My sentiments exactly.

[King Tendulkar]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

no hate wate ... debate the points .... it wont take long for me or someone else to come up with a stinging response based on rhetorics ... as it is the fact is ... there is a looong list of temples that were made into something else by these guys ... everybody and his dog knows that .... however turning a blind eye is what our Nation is very good at for whatever reasons.

spot on, people want to turn blind eye to the destruction and hijacking of temples by muslims

[Anakin]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus Haven't seen any objective debunking of the so called BS points in the OP. Just blind faith. Although I'll admit that the spelling argument is not a good one

[Gaurav]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

no hate wate ... debate the points .... it wont take long for me or someone else to come up with a stinging response based on rhetorics ... as it is the fact is ... there is a looong list of temples that were made into something else by these guys ... everybody and his dog knows that .... however turning a blind eye is what our Nation is very good at for whatever reasons.

EXACTLY!!!!! A country that does not fully understand and recognize it's history does not deserve a future!

[gator]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus thts cos some people have good food to eat, clothes to wear, and a nice lifestyle.... all tht is good.... but denying one's history.??... well, i cant even imagine tht.....

[yoda]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus what does denying history have anything to do with refusing to accept some outlandish claims by a solo guy? have his claims been backed up by any "expert" in the field? a lot of what he says cannot be argued on a message board, but need to be independently verified by experts in the field. looks like the threshold for acceptance is very very low if it suits one's own personal agenda. some of us have no such agenda and hence we have a higher threshold.

[gator]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus why is it morally thrust upon him to provide the arguments and facts while u sit on ur high chair and pass judgements.... y, u r not aware of the number of temples and monuments either destroyed or converted by muslims????

[yoda]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

why is it morally thrust upon him to provide the arguments and facts while u sit on ur high chair and pass judgements....

He doesn't have to prove anything to me. But I don't have to accept his statements as facts unless independently verified.

y, u r not aware of the number of temples and monuments either destroyed or converted by muslims????

Of course I am, which is why I said that the wood for the taj could have come from one of the many temples these guys had bull-dozed. But to accept an age old accepted fact as false, you need independent confirmation and expert verification. Otherwise it will sound just like the Iranian president claiming that the Holocaust never happened. People will only laugh at us. And we don't want people to laugh at us making outlandish claims, do we?

[gator]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

why is it morally thrust upon him to provide the arguments and facts while u sit on ur high chair and pass judgements....

He doesn't have to prove anything to me. But I don't have to accept his statements as facts unless independently verified.

y, u r not aware of the number of temples and monuments either destroyed or converted by muslims????

Of course I am, which is why I said that the wood for the taj could have come from one of the many temples these guys had bull-dozed. But to accept an age old accepted fact as false, you need independent confirmation and expert verification. Otherwise it will sound just like the Iranian president claiming that the Holocaust never happened. People will only laugh at us. And we don't want people to laugh at us making outlandish claims, do we?

nobody is making outlandish claims.... we were debating the validity of the author's facts... if things really have to be proven, i am sure it doesnt need independent verification cos there is sufficient proof tht the indian government holds some of the doors closed and has never opened them ever.... infact, ur claims sounds more similar to holocaust never happened..... cos everyone knows who affected whom....

[yoda]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

what does denying history have anything to do with refusing to accept some outlandish claims by a solo guy? have his claims been backed up by any "expert" in the field? a lot of what he says cannot be argued on a message board, but need to be independently verified by experts in the field. looks like the threshold for acceptance is very very low if it suits one's own personal agenda. some of us have no such agenda and hence we have a higher threshold.

What is your threshold on this : http://www.stephen-knapp.com/letter_of_aurangzeb.htm

I am no expert on construction and weather issues those days. But it is conceivable that a 22 year old construction needed some more money to finish up as Aurangazeb was not happy with the way the initial work was done.

[gator]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus dude... u r in serious denial.... i am not saying, fold and accept those facts, as we are not doing tht either.... atleast be open-minded and try to rationalise, at the least, in ur mind...

[yoda]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus I found one interesting writeup which summarizes some of the points. I am not claiming him to be an expert, but he seems to have done some research to counter these claims: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by girish on October 13, 2001 at 01:11:11: In Reply to: Fact about Taj Mahal - India posted by Rashi on July 23, 2001 at 23:16:09: P.N.Oak is a fanatic who dupes gullible people with specious arguments. In the case of the Taj Mahal: It is true that there is no mention of the 'Taj Mahal' in the Badshahnama. But there is ample mention of the grand Rauza - e - Mumtaz Mahal. This was shortened to Taj Mahal in colloquial speech. About Mumtaz's name, it was actually Arjumand Bano Begum, but she was referred to as Mumtaz Mahal, and there are many such references to her in Mughal records. Many of the names we use for our great monuments are similarly colloquial: the Konark temple, the Ajanta Caves etc. Raja Jai Singh was one of the pillars of the Mughal establishment, one of Shah Jahan's most trusted leiutenants. How likely is it that Shah Jahan, who had the whole of North India as his fief, would snatch a valued temple of Raja Jai Singh and offend the Rajput by converting this temple into a Muslim mausoleum with mosque attached? When P.N.Oak first began to write about the Taj Mahal in the 1960s, he claimed that it was a Rajput palace; a few decades later he began claiming that it was a Shiva temple. The fact is that the Taj Mahal looks nothing like a Rajput Palace or a Hindu temple, and looks exactly like what it is: the pinnacle of Muslim architecture in India. There are many travellers' accounts contemporary to the building of the Taj Mahal, including that of the travellers Tavernier and Bernier, the first of whom witnessed the construction of the edifice. The GROUNDS for the Taj Mahal were acquired from Raja Jai Singh for the purposes of building the Taj, but there was no building on them. In keeping with the Timurid tradition of never having royal tombs on usurped or conquered land, Jai Singh was compensated with three mansions in return for the grounds on which the Taj was built. In fact, Jai Singh's palace, very close to the grounds which were used for the Taj, became historically noteworthy when Shivaji was incarcerated there and later made a daring escape. Would Jai Singh have two palaces side by side, or is it more likely that the grounds of his mansion were taken over for building a memorial to the dead empress of India? The Taj Mahal stands in an impeccable line of Mughal tomb and mosque contruction: the mausoleum of Humayun, with its octagonal base, is one of the inspirations behind the Taj; the mausoleum of Itmad ud Daulah at Agra, built in marble with a lot of decorative inlay work, is another. The Moti Masjid mosque, also built in Agra by Shah Jahan immediately after the construction of the Taj was completed, continues this tradition. It is true that the Taj Mahal contains many Hindu motifs, but this only points to the liberal nature of the Mughals before Aurangzeb. In Akbar's time Hindu motifs actually predominated in some Mughla constructions. So we should not be surprised to find a kalash or Hindu floral motifs in the Taj Mahal. Carbon dating will only reveal how old the wood in a door is, not how long ago the door was carved. In other words, if a 300 year old tree was felled to carve the Taj door, it would register as a 600 year old piece of wood today. Besides, some of the original features of the Taj have been reconstructed after the damage caused by Jats in the 18th century. A new door may conceivably have been placed there, I will need to check the facts on this. The basic point of Oak and his fellow fanatics is that Hindus produced all that is beautiful and valuable in India, and Muslims were only despoilers and conquerors. It is a tragic fact that many temples were destroyed by invaders, particularly in North India. But to compensate for this loss by claiming as Hindu architecture which is clearly Muslim is irrational and counter-productive. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/7958.html

[yoda]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

22 Year old ? It took 22 Years to Complete ... it shouldnt even have been built or barely built when Zeb wrote that Letter ...

It was built over 22 years means some parts of the building were 22 years? We don't know where they started and where they finished, do we? Gator, being open-minded is asking questions. Not be in blind acceptance of what is written without a single question raised like you and others here, except write a few personal innuendos against others who are questioning some of the claims here.

[yoda]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

We don't know where they started and where they finished' date=' do we? [/quote'] Even without knowing anything about Civil Engineering I can tell you that the Dome would have been among the last to have been built.

Not necessarily. They could have built a basic ground structure and done one pass including the dome in a couple of years and went ahead with the internal carvings and other finishing touches etc over the next 20 years. If they waited for 21 years to build the rest of the stuff including all the carvings inside and finally gotten to the dome, they would be opening the whole building to rain. Now the next question would be, if they had the dome in place to start with, why did anything get ruined at all for it to be rebuilt soon after it was done? Possibly because the dome wasn't done properly.

[gator]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus Girish is on facking dope to think tht a holy hindu kalash will be present in a muslim monument....

[yoda]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

It is true that the Taj Mahal contains many Hindu motifs' date=' but this only points to the liberal nature of the Mughals before Aurangzeb. In Akbar's time Hindu motifs actually predominated in some Mughla constructions. So we should not be surprised to find a kalash or Hindu floral motifs in the Taj Mahal[/quote'] heheheeeeee .... Shah Jahan ordered grounding of Temples at Varanasi Allahabad ... his Baadshahnama records the number at 76 ... Never mind what Aurangzeb did .... http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm

from wikipedia: Influences on Taj Mahal design The Taj Mahal incorporates and expands on many design traditions, particularly Hindu, Ottoman, and earlier Mughal architecture. The overall design derived inspiration from a number of successful Timurid and Mughal buildings. These include the Gur-e Amir (the tomb of Timur, progenitor of the Mughal dynasty, in Samarkand),[4] Humayun's Tomb, Itmad-Ud-Daulah's Tomb (sometimes called the Baby Taj), and his own Jama Masjid. Under Shah Jahan's patronage, Mughal building reached new levels of refinement; while previous Mughal building had primarily been constructed of red sandstone, Shah Jahan promoted the use of white marble inlaid with semi-precious stones. Interior of masjid dome, showing inlaid geometric decoration Enlarge Interior of masjid dome, showing inlaid geometric decoration Hindu craftsmen, particularly sculptors and stonecutters, plied trade throughout Asia during this period, and their work was particularly prized by tomb builders. Whilst the rock-cut architecture which characterises much of this construction had little influence on the Taj Mahal (carvings are only one form of the decorative element), other Indian buildings such as the Man Singh palace in Gwalior were an inspiration for much Mughal palace architecture and the source for the chhatris which can be seen on the Taj Mahal. Design elements Consistent repeated design elements are employed throughout the complex. These unify the complex with a single aesthetic vocabulary. Design elements of the Taj Mahal. Enlarge Design elements of the Taj Mahal. Major design features of the tomb are echoed throughout the complex -- both the tomb and the outlying buildings. * Finial: decorative crowning element of the Taj Mahal domes * Lotus decoration: depiction of lotus flower sculpted on tops of domes * Onion dome: massive outer dome of the tomb (also called an amrud or apple dome) * Drum: cylindrical base of the onion dome, raising it from the main building * Guldasta: decorative spire attached to the edge of supporting walls * Chattri: a domed and columned kiosk * Spandrel: upper panels of an archway * Calligraphy: stylised writing of verses from the Qu'ran framing main arches * Arch: also called pishtaq (Persian word for portal projecting from the facade of a building) and * Dado: decorative sculpted panels lining lower walls Most of the elements can be found on the gateway, mosque and jawab as well as the mausoleum.

In other words, if a 300 year old tree was felled to carve the Taj door, it would register as a 600 year old piece of wood today

How many trees are known to live that long in India ... ? Very very few.

Age of the wood only shows when the wood was taken out of the tree (thanks to shwetabh for correcting that). It does not show when the wood was installed in a building (and has no relationship the age of the tree itself). The wood could have travelled any number of journeys including that of being in another hindu temple.

[gator]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus mullah Yoda, then please explain why the indian government refuses to open the doors of some rooms....

[yoda]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus By the way, some more info about P.N. Oak from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.N._Oak He has written several books and articles about the history of India. His interest in rectifying what he believes to be "the biased and distorted versions of India's history produced by the invaders and colonizers" encouraged him to start the Institute for Rewriting Indian History in June 14, 1964. In modern India, he claims, secular and Marxist historians fabricated "idealized versions" of India's past and drained it of its Vedic context and content. Oak's work typically seeks to proclaim the virtues and achievements of Hindu culture and religion over other traditions. He has claimed that both Islam and Christianity originated as distortions of Vedic beliefs. He insists that the word Islam itself derives from the Sanskrit term "Ishalayam" meaning the Temple of God. He alleges that Kaaba in Mecca was originally a shrine to Shiva,[1] and that Christianity began as a form of devotion to Krishna. According to Oak, "Christianity is a mal-pronunciation of the Sanskrit term Chrisn-nity also spelled as Krishna-neeti. Since Bhagavad Geeta is the book of Krishna-neeti, what we know as Christianity is a fossiled, broken branch of the Vedic tree, and in fact the ancient Bhagavad Geeta cult." Oak further claims that the Papacy was "a Vedic priesthood" until Constantine the Great killed the Vedic pope to replace him with the head of the hitherto unimportant Christian sect. This instantly ensured the Europe-wide triumph of Christianity because of the "sacred sway of the holy hoary Vedic priest known as the Shankaracharya".[2] He has also claimed that the Taj Mahal and other buildings ascribed to Muslim Indians were actually converted shrines to Hindu deities. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[yoda]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

mullah Yoda' date=' then please explain why the indian government refuses to open the doors of some rooms....[/quote'] lowly gator, i refuse to respond to such tone. if you want a response, learn to argue properly.

[yoda]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

They could have built a basic ground structure and done one pass including the dome in a couple of years and went ahead with the internal carvings and other finishing touches etc over the next 20 years.

Internal carvings arent part of the "Main" building construction(which is what the Dome is part of) they come under decorations/beautifications part of the project. Given the non-existence of technology at that time ... its fair to say that the "Main" building construction would have taken considerable time .... considereably more than what the decorations took ...and hence the Dome would have been closer to the time when zeb inspected it ..? Unless ofcourse you claim that the carvings are such intricate in nature that it took much much more time than the building construction - and I wouldnt be surprised at all if you said that

why not? some of these carvings could have taken years to complete.