Worth reading:-




Read this story about history of Taj Mahal which is not known to us.
> The Mogul Emperor Shah Jahan in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal
> built the Taj Mahal. It was built in 22 years (1631 to 1653) by 20,000
> artisans brought to India from all over the world. Many people believe
> Ustad Isa of Iran designed it.
>
> This is what your guide probably told you if you ever visited the Taj
> Mahal. This is the story I read in my
> history book as a student in India. No one has ever challenged it except
> Professor P.N.Oak, who believes that the whole world has been duped.
> In his book Taj Mahal: The True Story, Oak says the Taj Mahal is not
> Queen Mumtaz Mahal's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of Lord
> Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalay! a).
>
> In the course of his research, Oak discovered the Shiva temple palace
> was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh.
> ShahJahan then remodeled the palace into his wife's memorial. 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 begin with the name Taj Mahal. He says this term does
&! gt; not occur in any Moghul court papers or chronicles, even afte r
> ShahJahan's time. The term "Mahal" has never been used for a building in
> any of the Muslim countries, from Afghanistan to Algeria. "The unusual
> explanation that the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal Is
> illogical in at least two respects. First, her name was never Mumtaz
> Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani," he writes. "Second, 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 the Shiva's Palace. Oak also says the love story of
> Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale created court sycophants,
> blundering historians and sloppy archaeologists.
>
> Not a single royal chronicle of ShahJahan's time corroborates the love
> story.Furthermore, Oak cites
> several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal predates Shah Jahan's era,
> and was! a temple palace dedicated to Shiva worshipped by the Rajputs of
> Agra city. For example, Professor Marvin Miller of NewYork took a few
> samples from the riverside doorway of the Taj. Carbon dating tests
> revealed that the door was 300
> years older than ShahJahan. 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 TajMahal 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 long well before Shah Jahan's time.
> 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 J! ahan's time, and are
> still inaccessible to the public. Oa k asserts they contain a headless
> statue of Shiva and other objects commonly used for worship rituals in
> Hindu temples.
>
> Fearing political backlash, Indira Gandhi's government tried to have
> Oak's book withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indian
> publisher of the first edition with dire consequences.
> There is only one way to discredit or validate Oak's research. The
> current Indian government should open
> the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal under UN supervision, and let
> international experts investigate.
>
> Do Circulate this to all your friends and let them know about this
> reality