Taj Mahal: An ancient temple or royal tomb?

1 13. 03. 2018
6th international conference of exopolitics, history and spirituality

The Indian Taj Mahal is considered one of the most beautiful buildings in the world and a true expression of a man's love for a woman.

The story of the Taj Mahal is known to most people from storytelling guides. According to him, the building was designed by the Iranian architect Ustad Isa for the Indian chess Jahan of the Mogul dynasty as a monument to his wife Mumtaz Mahal, who died in childbirth. Schools in India teach that the construction lasted 22 years (1631 - 1653) and involved 20000 craftsmen and workers from around the world.

But what if they are only lies invented by the Indian government?

Professor PN Oak, author of Taj Mahal: The True Story, believes that the world has been deceived. He claims that the Taj Mahal is not the tomb of Queen Mumtaz Mahal, but the old Hindu temple of the god Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya) worshiped by the Rajput dynasty of Agra.

This would postpone the construction 300 years earlier than the Shah Shah era. Oak's claims are based on historical facts. He discovered that Shah Jahan had originally taken over the palace temple dedicated to Shiva from the Maharaja of Jaipur, Jay Sing. He later rebuilt it as a memorial for his wife. In his own court chronicle of Badshachnam, he mentioned that the beautiful palace in Agra by Jay Sing would serve as the burial place of Mumtaz. Maharaja Jaipur undertook to keep the handover of the temple secret.

At that time, it was not uncommon for the conquered temples and castles to be commonly used by Muslim rulers as tombs. For example, Humayun and Albar are buried in such palaces.

It all started with a name. Oak claims that the word Mahal did not appear in any of the court writings or chronicles or in the period after the reign of Shah Jahan and was never used for any building in any Muslim country. He writes: "The explanation that the term Taj Mahal is derived from Mumtaz Mahal is not logical for at least two reasons. For the first time, her name was never Mumtaz Mahal, but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani. Second, we cannot omit the first three letters of the female name to deduce the origin of the building's name. ”He claims that the Taj Mahal is an altered version of the words Tejo Mahalaya, meaning Shiva's palace.

But then what about the fairy-tale love story? Oak claims that not a single royal chronicle from the time of Shah Jahan mentions him. He also found out that Professor Marvin Miller of New York had taken samples from the entrance by the river. The radiocarbon method revealed that the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan. In addition, the German traveler Johan Albrecht de Mandelslo, who visited Agra in 1638 (only 7 years after Mumtaz's death), describes the life of the city in memoirs, but does not mention the construction of the Taj Mahal.

Another striking evidence is the writings of Peter Mundy, an Englishman who visited Agra in the year after Mumtaz's death. He writes that the Taj Mahal was an important building long before the time of Shah Jahan.

In his book, Oak also points to many inconsistencies in architecture and design that support the thesis that the Taj Mahal is typically a Hindu temple and not a mausoleum.

Tadz Mahal served from the beginning

View Results

Uploading ... Uploading ...

Similar articles