Taj Mahal originally Hindu Temple?

I have come across a few articles on the net claiming that the Taj Mahal was originally a Hindu temple and that Shah Jahan only acquired and adapted it to his own needs. does anyone have anymore information on this very interesting topic?

i heard the incomplete section of the taj mahal was the temple

I've heard it and read about it, but haven't given it much credence, as far as I know the Taj Mahal was built by Shah Jahan as a tomb for his beloved Mumtaz.

however going along with the theory of it being a hindu temple...here's an article that would support that thinking.

www.flex.com...

It could be true but my main question is why has nobody tried to determine this for sure is it because the government will not allow it?

It does not matter if it was a Hindu Temple at one time. The fact of the matter is it is THE MOST historical monument in India, and i doubt the government will let anyone go around digging up the place.

When considering these things, one has to be careful. THe muslim-hindu rivalry and struggles in india are pretty intense (heck, it ultimately resulted in the country splitting in two, into india and pakistan). Especially when it comes to temples.

Hindu nationalists in particular will often claim that there is 'evidence' of an ancient hindu temple on a site that is important to muslims, even with scant evidence. On the one hand, its a reasonable presumption, that the new religion builds its temples on the sites of the old religion, happened in europe and elsewhere, no reason to think it'd work differently in india. But, when its a claim that involves overtly nationalistic tones, like with the supposed "Temple of Ram" or the Taj Mahal, excessive caution would be recomended. The mere existence of reports citing 'evidence' of a temple and a body of people accepting it can' t be taken to mean anything.

I understand what you are saying about caution but this has nothing to do with religion. The Taj Mahal has no real religious value to muslims as it is not a mosque. I think the evidence presented on these websites is worthy of investigation rather than to shy away from it because it may offend people.

Originally posted by puneetsg
It does not matter if it was a Hindu Temple at one time.

Ofcourse it matters it would change history. why teach a pack of lies to school children when it can be avoided so easily

thats only IF it is proven to have existed before the Moghuls took over

Many sites in India are sacred to both religiions for some reason or another, so I wouldn't totally discount the idea. But will we see a Hindu mob destroy the TaJ in order to build a temple? I doubt it, it is a major landmark and tourist attraction that brings jobs to all.

Nobody is talking about destroying the Taj or digging it up all Im saying is that they should allow a team of experts full access to all its sealed doors on lower levels. That is what adds fuel to the fire, the very fact that they do not allow any scrutiny. Similar to Dr. Zahi Hawass in Egypt.

Why is the government not allowing any research on the temple issue? To prevent any controversies. Simple.

Even Hinduism has recently developed its frings lunatic extremist groups (although they have been quite subdued for the last year or so) that will use any excuse to push forward their agenda.

And plus getting the Taj involved is simply ridiculous. It is a National Icon, dear to all. Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs & Christians, to all. Why would you want to tarnish the image of a monument that seems to bring the nation closer together. It does not make sense.

And how would history change. History will still say that Shahjahan built the Greatest Monument of Love for his wife Mumtaz Mahal.

Originally posted by puneetsg
Why would you want to tarnish the image of a monument that seems to bring the nation closer together. It does not make sense.

And how would history change. History will still say that Shahjahan built the Greatest Monument of Love for his wife Mumtaz Mahal.

1. how would it tarnish the image of the Taj?

2. If it was proven not to be built by Shah Jahan and that it already existed would that not change history?

If you could answer these questions it would be much appreciated Im not trying to be difficult Im just trying to understand how you came about with the above points

thanks
KG

Your answers

1. It would tarnish the image of the Taj because it wouyld be dragged into a religious controversy by fanatic groups from both the Hindu & Muslim sides.

2. Ok i think you are mistaken here. What is being alleged here is that the Taj was built OVER the site of an existing Hindu Temple. That is the temple was razed to the ground and the the Taj was built on that spot. No one is saying that the Taj WAS a hindu temple or that Hindus built it. Actually a lot of Hindu artisans were involved in the building process, but still it was comissioned by Shahjahan

Originally posted by puneetsg
No one is saying that the Taj WAS a hindu temple or that Hindus built it. Actually a lot of Hindu artisans were involved in the building process, but still it was comissioned by Shahjahan

Well this website IS saying that the Tj was built by Hindu's and was infact a temple
please read it carefully so we can continue this interesting debate.

www.flex.com...

once again I am only after the truth if the truth is in fact that it was built by Shah Jahan, then so be it.

Originally posted by g60kg
rather than to shy away from it because it may offend people.

Offense is never a reason to not investigate, indeed.

However, again, I would caution, there is a lot of bad information out there being floated by both sides, and the hindu nationalists in india are not above making these sorts of claims in order to advance their prestige, both in the public's mind and their own minds.

g60kg
Similar to Dr. Zahi Hawass in Egypt.

Perhaps this is the best reason to not bother with any investigations, because they will be fruitless. When people came to Hawas with good evidence of chambers or voids underneath the sphinx, he engaged, with them, in digging down to the level of the chambers, exposing the sphinx, one of the oldest man-made things out there, to great danger. There was nothing there; fair enough it was an error.
And yet, people continue to insist that there is something there, and then smear the good name of the esteemed, open-minded, and honourable Dr. Hawass.
There is no reason to deal with such demands.

As far as destroying the Taj Mahal, I think that its fame might protect it, but there are other muslim mosques and shrines that hindu nationalist mobs have destroyed, claiming that there are ancient vedic temples underneath.

how would it tarnish the image of the Taj?

By having mobs of people incite sectarian violence and having people die over it. Lets not pretend that thats not a possibility.

once again I am only after the truth if the truth is in fact that it was built by Shah Jahan, then so be it.

No one is claiming that Jahan found it, said 'neat' and then carved his name on it. They are saying that there was a structure on the site, built by non-muslim hindu indians, and that muslim non-hindu indians built the current structure.
Clearly, the Taj Mahal is not a hindu building, it is clearly a muslim building. Muslims don't make statues, wall decorations of living things, etc, and that is why the Taj Mahal is so 'plain', unornate, and geometric. Indian Temples celebrate the image of life to the point of practical obscenity.

As far as the site you are citing:

www.flex.com...
By now you all know through my previous articles, the irrefutable facts and deductive logic which prove that Islam is evil right at its very foundation. It is not a religion, but a means to legalize rape, murder, loot and destruction!

Lets take anything this yahoo says with a few metric tonnes of salt.

Please keep in my mind that this is the same Shah Jahan who had a harem of 5,000 women and the same Shah Jahan who had a incestuous relationship with his daughter justifing it by saying, 'a gardner has every right to taste the fruit he has planted'! Is such a person even capable of imagning such a wondrous structure as the Taj Mahal let alone be the architect of it?

Clearly, they are. Being a lout or oversexed has nothing to do with nothing. SOme of the greatest temples in india are absolutely covered with statuettes depicting every sex act between a man, woman, and a half dozen of her friends, possible.

The writer Abdul Hamid has stated that Taj Mahal is a temple-palace taken from Jaipur's Maharaja Jaisigh and the building was known as Raja Mansingh's palace

IOW, there was a hindu building there, and now there is a giagantic muslim mausoleum.

In that letter Aurangzeb records in 1652 A.D itself that the several buildings in the fancied burial place of Mumtaz were seven storeyed and were so old that they were all leaking, while the dome had developed a crack on the northern side. Aurangzeb, therefore, ordered immediate repairs to the buildings at his own expense while recommending to the emperor that more elaborate repairs be carried out later. This is the proof that during Shahjahan's reign itself that the Taj complex was so old as to need immediate repairs.

Again, irrelevant. THe structure you see now is not a hindu temple, it is a great work of muslim art, built on the site of an old hindu temple. The facets that make the builidng remarkable are the muslim facets, not the fact that there is yet another big stone building.

Nygdan your replies are so long.

I would just be more satisfied if I saw a programme on Discovery showing an investigative team searching for answers at the Taj Mahal.

Im just curious as to how a particular website can contain 109 points of reference that 'prove' it to be a Hindu building. Is there absolutely no truth in what they are saying is it 100% lies?

Originally posted by g60kg
Nygdan your replies are so long.[/quote[
I apologize, but I find the topic and discussion intersting.

I would just be more satisfied if I saw a programme on Discovery showing an investigative team searching for answers at the Taj Mahal.

What would they look for? It looks like there was a structure there previously. The big issue is that the Taj Mahal is not even done in a hindu design, its a work of specifically muslim artistic movements and requirements. There are lots of huge temple complexes in India, the thing that makes the Taj Mahal stand out is its appearance, and that appearance is the work of muslim artistic genious.

[quiote]Im just curious as to how a particular website can contain 109 points of reference that 'prove' it to be a Hindu building. Is there absolutely no truth in what they are saying is it 100% lies?

I don't see why what they are citing can't be true, but they are saying that there was a big old building there, and that the Taj Mahal is therefore really Hindu. If it was hindu, then its the most freakish and bizzare work of hindu architecture in existence. THe authors seem to be taking a basic statement, and blowing it up into a big "Hindus rule, down with muslim infidels" type of deal.

I agree with the design issue but I would still love to see a credible programme on the subject especially since this is not a new theory but has been talked about for many years now, but I think this topic has probably been exhausted

I don't know about that, I do know this. They've done documentries on the Taj Mahal, check it out at your local libary. But they do mention it's dual or possible 4 or 5 purposes it may have servered over the years.

Well one thing Im sure everyone will agree on is that it is truly magnificent I have been there and all I can say is that no photograph will ever do it justice, it is a must see