Taj Mahal originally Hindu Temple?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Sorry i could not reply to you query g60kg, have been real busy.

Ok please tell me you do not believe the guy who wrote the article. He has made too many mistakes. Jus one of them being that Mumtaz Mahal's real name was Arjumand Banu Begum and not whatever he mentioned.

Plus all the supposed hindu architectural features here mentioned have a very simple explanation. Mughal architecture is an amalgamation of the Islmic and Hindy styles. The 'arch' and the 'dome' are notable Islamic features.

This typical Mughal architectural style can be seen in development right from the time of Babur, and it reached its pinnacle with the Taj.

The Mughal emperors are known for the way they embraced India and its culture. Until Aurengzeb, none sought the active conversion of the populace into Islam. They were foreigners who made India their home, to such an extent that they literally lost all touch with their own roots. It is only recently, since the start of Hindu fundamentalism, that the great and important role they played in the history of India is being questioned.

Lastly there are voluminous records related to the building of the Taj from huge orders for marble to records of the wages of the artisans etc.




posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
My post has nothing to do with the topic at hand (tho I have read every post with great interest.) I just want to point out something that I've seen in more than one post and that's a reference to Hindu "fundamentalism" or "fanatics".

Did it occur to anyone that with the current zealous and downright cruel conversion techniques poverty level Hindus are receiving from Christian missionaries just might have something to do with Hindus being protective of their native faith and culture?



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
How does fanaticism from one religion justify fanaticism within another?

And its pretty clear that its not only 'the poor' that are fanatical. The poor aren't the ones calling for the alteration of the country's natural drainage system to 'restore the sarasvati', and the poor aren't the only ones wanting to demolish the mosque that sits on the hypothetical 'Shrine of Ram". Most of the more radical and militant hindu works come from the educated and upper class, and usually goes hand in hand with nationalist policies. Its not the fault of the small minority of christians in the country.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
There's a number of reasons why it isn't likely:

#1, several travelers (including Englishman named Mundy) wrote about it as it was being constructed.

#2, it's very clearly Muslim architecture.

#3, the problems between the Muslims and Hindus had been going on for centuries by the time that it was built in the 1600's. If it had been a Hindu holy site, it would have been the scene of a lot of fighting in the past and would continue to be the place of a lot of bombings and so forth today.

There are other sites where this occurred, but the Taj Majal was not one of them.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
There's a number of reasons why it isn't likely:

#1, several travelers (including Englishman named Mundy) wrote about it as it was being constructed.


Im just curious to know who are the 'several travellers' that you speak of?



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by g60kg
 


there is no #ing proof that taj mahal was hindu temple or babri mosque!!! If you really think so, then go ahead and destroy the taj mahal with your #ing hindu terrorist group!! indian government will take no action to stop you, even police would help you destroy it.
edit on 28-2-2011 by earumamaadu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
www.google.co.in...:&imgrefurl=http://karavani ndia.org/aroundlko/oaltemplesarus%2520congregration.htm&docid=fwvdoIA6R01k3M&imgurl=http://karavanindia.org/aroundlko/pics/templefrog.jpg&w=350&h=305& ei=ys0cUOTSLYjf4QSRxoDQBg&zoom=1


the above pic is that of a frog temple near agra in U.P which was dedicated to lord shiva and is nearly 350 yrs old....what is claimed to be as islamic architecture is nothing but modification of the pre-existing structures constructed during the vedic period....we in india have many temples which resemble like a mosque or even orthodox churches and are quite old...some as old as 2000 yrs...i am not supporting a particular religion but just tryin to point towards the truth...and also its nowhere mentioned during shah jahan's reign that he built the taj mahal (in his book titled shah jahan nama) whereas he merely inscribed a few urdu writings on the walls and if it was a tomb of love...then its also true that mumtaz was his 7th wife!!!



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


www.google.co.in...:&imgrefurl=http://karavani ndia.org/aroundlko/oaltemplesarus%2520congregration.htm&docid=fwvdoIA6R01k3M&imgurl=http://karavanindia.org/aroundlko/pics/templefrog.jpg&w=350&h=305& ei=ys0cUOTSLYjf4QSRxoDQBg&zoom=1

kindly go thru this link to get ur doubts cleared.....am an architect and have been going thru the various designs and concepts of structures prevailing during hindu/vedic civilization....just google "frog temple oel state" u will find what u need....islamic architecture doesn't exist...its just a modification of/on the pre existing vedic/hindu structures...PS: am not supporting any particular sect...but going as per the facts!!!



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Mumtaz Mahal died at Burhanpur, somewhere in central India. Her body was buried there on the banks of the River Tapti. Six months later, her body was reburied in Agra as the Emperor Shah Jahan desired to build a grand mausoleum in her memory. He was the Emperor and there was no need to take over any temple for the burial of his wife. All sites were available to him. Read more about it here. How Agra Got the Taj?

In all this debate, it is often forgotten that the Taj Mahal is actually a burial ground. That's all. There is a huge mass of people in India who continue to be furious at all existing symbols of Islam and their domination of South Asia and want to pull down all such symbols. One such successful attempt was done in the December of 1992 when BJP exhorted the simple folks of India, in the name of religion to become frenzied with fury, who then went on to demolish the mosque built since many centuries under the top leadership of the BJP.

As a consequence, the Indian Parliament passed an act prohibiting demolition of any structure pre-existing 1947, the year that India obtained its independence.

The lone exception is the demolished mosque area which is claimed to be the birthplace of Ram. This dispute is in the courts of India and Supreme Court of India is to hear the case in due course of time.

You must visit Agra to see all of this for yourself. One way to travel to Agra from Delhi is Delhi to Agra by car



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by g60kg
 


Nop , Taj Mahal is not the Hindu Temple .


It was built by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his third wife, Mumtaz Mahal. The Taj Mahal is widely recognized as "the jewel of Muslim art in India and one of the universally admired masterpieces of the world's heritage"
Wiki

There is nothing similarity between any Hindu temple and the Taj Mahal . Hindus never make temple that resembles like a Mosque





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join