HIDDEN TRUTH ABOUT TAJ MAHAL....?

jofizo

Nak berkongsi dgn korang nih, aku ada terbaca yg mengatakan Taj Mahal nih bukanlah Makam yg dibina oleh Shah Jahan utk isterinya, Mumtaz tetapi berasal dari tapak kuil Hindu....


Hidden Truth - Never say it is a Tomb




Aerial view of the Taj Mahal




The interior water well

jofizo

Frontal view of the Taj Mahal and dome




Close up of the dome with pinnacle

jofizo

Close up of the pinnacle




Inlaid pinnacle pattern in courtyard

jofizo

Red lotus at apex of the entrance




Rear view of the Taj & 22 apartments




View of sealed doors & windows in back

jofizo

Typical Vedic style corridors




The Music House--a contradiction




A locked room on upper floor

jofizo

A marble apartment on ground floor




The OM in the flowers on the walls




Staircase that leads to the lower levels

jofizo

300 foot long corridor inside apartments




One of the 22 rooms in the secret lower level




Interior of one of the 22 secret rooms

jofizo

Interior of another of the locked rooms




Vedic design on ceiling of a locked room




Huge ventilator sealed shut with bricks

jofizo

Secret walled door that leads to other rooms




Secret bricked door that hides more evidence

jofizo

Palace in Barhanpur where Mumtaz died




Pavilion where Mumtaz is said to be buried

jofizo

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 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 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.

alphawolf

Walaupun kira membazir buat makam besar gilos camtu...ianya tetap peninggalan kerajaan Islam Moghul. Bila keluar cerita kuil hindu tu nampak gayanya hindu India nak takeover tempat tu la...macam kes Masjid Babri....

razifah

Aku setuju dgn ckp alpha.....

edmundo

Bl terbaca ttg bukti cinta Raja ni terhadap wife dia yg meninggal ni, teringat sy dgn berita seorang hakim besar M'sia yg advertise poems kt main newspaper ttg kasih cintanya terhdp wife nye itu..last2 i dpt tahu...beliau pun meninggal akibat "tertembak" diri sendiri tu...
Hebat hebat...:jeling:

foxs

aku pun stuju ngan alpa, nanti jadi macam kat masjid al-aqsa dimana kaum yahudi mendakwa ia tapak kuil
nabi sulaiman!!!

last sekali bunuh sana, bunuh sini....

sherrina

mundo,
sapa hakim yg ko maksudkan tu? aku x penah dgr citer tu

blasahjela

aku pon setuju ngan pendapat alfa ..daripada info yg aku baca mmg usaha untuk mengambil alih taj mahal dari jagaan urg islam kat
india ni tgh di jalankan ....nak amik secara kekerasan susah ..jadi kene guna tektik yahudi aaaaa
sapa taknak beb ..tarikan pelancong utama ...sumber fulus tu ....jangan jadi macam masjid babri susah ...

CRK

Originally posted by blasahjela at 16-11-2006 12:36 AM
aku pon setuju ngan pendapat alfa ..daripada info yg aku baca mmg usaha untuk mengambil alih taj mahal dari jagaan urg islam kat
india ni tgh di jalankan ....nak amik secara kekerasan susah ..jad ...

mungkin betul taj mahal asalnya tapak kuil spt kes masjid babri.. atau mungkin dakwaan yg sengaja di ada-adakan oleh golongan ekstrimist hindu.. seperti juga berita tak lama dulu ttg penemuan patung2 hindu di sekitar Kaabah

tak sepatutnya dakwa taj mahal bekas kuil hanya dengan melihat senibina bangunan tu yg ada ciri2 hindu
sebab kebanyakan senibina bangunan bdasarkan budaya tempatan contohnya masjid2 di China yg langsung tak rupa masjid di kebanyakan negara2 Islam

CRK

Originally posted by blasahjela at 16-11-2006 12:36 AM
aku pon setuju ngan pendapat alfa ..daripada info yg aku baca mmg usaha untuk mengambil alih taj mahal dari jagaan urg islam kat
india ni tgh di jalankan ....nak amik secara kekerasan susah ..jad ...

mungkin betul taj mahal asalnya tapak kuil spt kes masjid babri.. atau mungkin dakwaan yg sengaja di ada-adakan oleh golongan ekstrimist hindu.. seperti juga berita tak lama dulu ttg penemuan patung2 hindu di sekitar Kaabah

tak sepatutnya dakwa taj mahal bekas kuil hanya dengan melihat senibina bangunan tu yg ada ciri2 hindu
sebab kebanyakan senibina bangunan bdasarkan budaya tempatan contohnya masjid2 di China yg langsung tak rupa masjid spt di kebanyakan negara2 Islam

jerai

aku biasa dengar dakwaan terdapat patung-patung hindu sekita kaabah, bila jumpa patung tu? pada zaman kerajaan mana patung tu dijumpai? ada bukti? sebab setahu saya rasullullah telah menghapus semua patung-patung disekitar kaabah semasa pembukaan kota mekah dulu, jadi cerita wujudnya patung disekitar kaabah itu hanyalah dakyah untuk menggugatkan keimanan umat islam khususunya. kalau macam tu mungkin satu hari nanti mereka mendakwa tapak masjid negara adalah bekas tapak kuil adakah patut kita bagi mereka untuk uruskan masjid negara atau kita robohkan masjid negara seperti masjid babri diindia setelah mendengar dakwaan mereka nanti,