[adinserter block="6"]

Sorry for destroying all your romantic imaginations. Apologies for trashing all poems, songs, and shayaris on love story of Taj Mahal. Truth is that plausibility of Taj Mahal being a love symbol is as much as Ajmal Kasab being architect of Mumbai CST because he captured it for some time.

Here we present 100 evidences that indicate that Taj Mahal was a Shiva temple captured by the barbaric terrorist Shah Jahan whose life story is a disgrace in name of humanity.

P N Oak did phenomenal work in his lifetime in exposing this truth. But he was shunned by friends and enemies alike in an era driven by appeasement. Like Galileo who was punished for telling that earth moves round the sun. Here we present excerpts from his findings.

Contrary to what visitors are made to believe the Tajmahal is not a Islamic mausoleum but an ancient Shiva Temple known as Tejo Mahalaya which the 5th generation Mughal emperor Shahjahan commandeered from the then Maharaja of Jaipur. The Taj Mahal, should therefore, be viewed as a temple palace and not as a tomb. That makes a vast difference.

You miss the details of its size, grandeur, majesty and beauty when you take it to be a mere tomb. When told that you are visiting a temple palace, you wont fail to notice its annexes, ruined defensive walls, hillocks, moats, cascades, fountains, majestic garden, hundreds of rooms arcaded verandahs, terraces, multi stored towers, secret sealed chambers, guest rooms, stables, the trident (Trishul) pinnacle on the dome and the sacred, esoteric Hindu letter “OM” carved on the exterior of the wall of the sanctum sanctorum now occupied by the cenotaphs.

Name

1.The term Tajmahal itself never occurs in any mughal court paper or chronicle even till Aurangzeb’s era. The attempt to explain it away as Taj-i-mahal is therefore, ridiculous.

2.The ending “Mahal” is never muslim because in none of the muslim countries around the world from Afghanistan to Algeria is there a building known as “Mahal”.

3.The unusual explanation of the term Tajmahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal, who is buried in it, is illogical in at least two respects. First, her name was never Mumtaj Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani. And second, one cannot omit the first three letters “Mum” from a woman’s name to derive the remainder as the name of the building.

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’).

5.Several European visitors of Shahjahan’s time allude to the building as Taj-e-Mahal. It is almost the correct tradition, age old Sanskrit name Tej-o-Mahalaya, signifying a Shiva temple. Shahjahan and Aurangzeb scrupulously avoid using the Sanskrit term and call it just a holy grave.

6.The tomb should be understood to signify NOT A BUILDING but only the grave or centotaph inside it. This would help people to realize that all dead muslim courtiers and royalty including Humayun, Akbar, Mumtaz, Etmad-ud-Daula and Safdarjang have been buried in capture Hindu mansions and temples.

7.If the Taj is believed to be a burial place, how can the term Mahal, i.e., mansion apply to it?

8.Since the term Taj Mahal does not occur in mughal courts it is absurd to search for any mughal explanation for it. Both its components namely, ‘Taj’ and’ Mahal’ are of Sanskrit origin.

From: Works of P.N. Oak

[adinserter block="13"]