The topic is locked.
Like it on Facebook, Tweet it or share this topic on other bookmarking websites.

There are at least 1001 evidences that are glaringly visible which prove that the Taj Mahal is not an original building but has been built on top of a Hindu temple. One has to read the book written Dr. Oak, although a copy is quite hard to get, which is quite obvious. But even if we do not accept Dr. Oak's research on the matter, hpw about accepting Shajahan's admission himself that he built Taj Mahal on top of a Hindu temple which was a part of a Hindu Raja's palace :

Shahjahan’s own court-chronicle, the Badshahnama, admits (on page 403, Vol. I) that a grand mansion of unique splendor, capped with a done (imaarat-e-alishan wa gumbaze) was taken from the Jaipur Maharaja Jaisingh for Mumtaz’s burial, and that the building was then known as Raja Mansingh’s palace.

 

But then like everything else, if an issue is concerned and is raised by Hindus, it HAS to be called religious fanaticism and the issue raisers as fundamentalists. Why cannot they accept facts as truth???

 


"I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally."
- W. C. Fields :)

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

There are at least 1001 evidences that are glaringly visible which prove that the Taj Mahal is not an original building but has been built on top of a Hindu temple. One has to read the book written Dr. Oak, although a copy is quite hard to get, which is quite obvious. But even if we do not accept Dr. Oak's research on the matter, hpw about accepting Shajahan's admission himself that he built Taj Mahal on top of a Hindu temple which was a part of a Hindu Raja's palace :

 

Shahjahan’s own court-chronicle, the Badshahnama, admits (on page 403, Vol. I) that a grand mansion of unique splendor, capped with a done (imaarat-e-alishan wa gumbaze) was taken from the Jaipur Maharaja Jaisingh for Mumtaz’s burial, and that the building was then known as Raja Mansingh’s palace.

 

But then like everything else, if an issue is concerned and is raised by Hindus, it HAS to be called religious fanaticism and the issue raisers as fundamentalists. Why cannot they accept facts as truth???

Because Truth cannot be assimilated.  That's why people cannot accept the TRUTH.

 

People can accept the Truth provided it is backed up by unimpeachable evidence and not hearsay and perceptional arguments. Historical injuries committed in times which were totally in contrast to today's times cannot be compared. Buddhism originated in India but was hounded out of India by Hindu backlash a few countries later on. Should this now be a reason for all Buddhist countries like Japan, Sri Lanka etc to declare us as their enemies. When will our "educated" grow up?

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:
suni51 wrote:
Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

We live in present times in an environment of democracy, secularism and socialism.  There can be no excuse for hurting religious sentiments of any  community or demolishing any religious buildings.  We cannot judge events in medieval times according to current norms.  It goes without saying that there was neither democracy nor socialism nor secularism in the medieval period when certain religious buildings were damaged and new structure built on them. Then might was right and victor could do anything. We need not and must not continue the bad practices in those times. Irrespective of anything in ancient or medieval period, we need now to uphold democratic, socialist and secular ideals and do nothing that may lead to national disintegration.   

Secularism is not one sided game to satisfy one particular religion for the sake of votes. Besides government has no right to stop anyone putting his rightful stake and that too in the name of false secularism. Let the facts speak for themselves.
No doubt, secularism and for that matter any thing cannot be one sided.  Here the point is that we live in present times. We cannot undo what happened during medieval times. Let us accept facts as these exist now or earliest in 1950 when our constitution became operative. By reopening every issue from remote ancient and medieval periods, we shall be nowhere. 

No one in his right mind would perhaps demand demolishing of Tajmahal whatever the reasons but if a section of population says it was Hindu property, there is nothing wrong. let's accept the truth.


I love this free image hosting site for sharing my work

https://o0.nz/

suni51 wrote:
Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:
suni51 wrote:
Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

We live in present times in an environment of democracy, secularism and socialism.  There can be no excuse for hurting religious sentiments of any  community or demolishing any religious buildings.  We cannot judge events in medieval times according to current norms.  It goes without saying that there was neither democracy nor socialism nor secularism in the medieval period when certain religious buildings were damaged and new structure built on them. Then might was right and victor could do anything. We need not and must not continue the bad practices in those times. Irrespective of anything in ancient or medieval period, we need now to uphold democratic, socialist and secular ideals and do nothing that may lead to national disintegration. 

Secularism is not one sided game to satisfy one particular religion for the sake of votes. Besides government has no right to stop anyone putting his rightful stake and that too in the name of false secularism. Let the facts speak for themselves.
No doubt, secularism and for that matter any thing cannot be one sided. Here the point is that we live in present times. We cannot undo what happened during medieval times. Let us accept facts as these exist now or earliest in 1950 when our constitution became operative. By reopening every issue from remote ancient and medieval periods, we shall be nowhere.

No one in his right mind would perhaps demand demolishing of Tajmahal whatever the reasons but if a section of population says it was Hindu property, there is nothing wrong. let's accept the truth.

In fact. all land in India was Hindu land before other faiths surfaced. So nothing particular about Tajmahal.  Babar came from abroad and obviously he could not have imported land from abroad for construction of either Babri mosque or Tajmahal/ other buildings built by his successors.  This is axiomatic.  Basically, foreign invasion/ rule  (Moghuls/ other Muslim dynasties/ British itself was bad. Everything else followed.  Why only Tajmahal, even Victoria Memorial must be a site that would be one day Hindu. 


G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:
suni51 wrote:
Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:
suni51 wrote:
Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

We live in present times in an environment of democracy, secularism and socialism.  There can be no excuse for hurting religious sentiments of any  community or demolishing any religious buildings.  We cannot judge events in medieval times according to current norms.  It goes without saying that there was neither democracy nor socialism nor secularism in the medieval period when certain religious buildings were damaged and new structure built on them. Then might was right and victor could do anything. We need not and must not continue the bad practices in those times. Irrespective of anything in ancient or medieval period, we need now to uphold democratic, socialist and secular ideals and do nothing that may lead to national disintegration. 

Secularism is not one sided game to satisfy one particular religion for the sake of votes. Besides government has no right to stop anyone putting his rightful stake and that too in the name of false secularism. Let the facts speak for themselves.
No doubt, secularism and for that matter any thing cannot be one sided. Here the point is that we live in present times. We cannot undo what happened during medieval times. Let us accept facts as these exist now or earliest in 1950 when our constitution became operative. By reopening every issue from remote ancient and medieval periods, we shall be nowhere.

No one in his right mind would perhaps demand demolishing of Tajmahal whatever the reasons but if a section of population says it was Hindu property, there is nothing wrong. let's accept the truth.

In fact. all land in India was Hindu land before other faiths surfaced. So nothing particular about Tajmahal.  Babar came from abroad and obviously he could not have imported land from abroad for construction of either Babri mosque or Tajmahal/ other buildings built by his successors.  This is axiomatic.  Basically, foreign invasion/ rule  (Moghuls/ other Muslim dynasties/ British itself was bad. Everything else followed.  Why only Tajmahal, even Victoria Memorial must be a site that would be one day Hindu.  

We're not talking about lands/sites but buildings which were converted into Makbaras like Ram janam Bhoomi and Tajmahal, there are many such examples.

 


I love this free image hosting site for sharing my work

https://o0.nz/

Thank you said by: Kalyani Nandurkar
Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

There are at least 1001 evidences that are glaringly visible which prove that the Taj Mahal is not an original building but has been built on top of a Hindu temple. One has to read the book written Dr. Oak, although a copy is quite hard to get, which is quite obvious. But even if we do not accept Dr. Oak's research on the matter, hpw about accepting Shajahan's admission himself that he built Taj Mahal on top of a Hindu temple which was a part of a Hindu Raja's palace :

Shahjahan’s own court-chronicle, the Badshahnama, admits (on page 403, Vol. I) that a grand mansion of unique splendor, capped with a done (imaarat-e-alishan wa gumbaze) was taken from the Jaipur Maharaja Jaisingh for Mumtaz’s burial, and that the building was then known as Raja Mansingh’s palace.

 

But then like everything else, if an issue is concerned and is raised by Hindus, it HAS to be called religious fanaticism and the issue raisers as fundamentalists. Why cannot they accept facts as truth???

 

It is a well known fact twhen Mughals invaded India they destroyed many temples and other monuments so Tajmahal built on a temple site is not at all surprising esp given the evidence provided by arheologists ....But the problem here is thatHindus are not supposed to say such things aloud because they immediately get branded as fundamentalists by the so called 'secular and supposedly very Educated???' hindus. They also jump up when such things happen with minorities and give open support to their cause, even blame the fundamentalist hindus for all their misery

Pay no mind to those who talk behind your back, it simply means that you are two steps ahead !!!

Thank you said by: Kalyani Nandurkar

Many times when such mundane issues are raised and endlessly debated I feel the blissful ignorance of the "uneducated' is far more better than the torturous knowledge of the 'educated'.  What purpose will be achieved by running down secularists and forcing people to agree to perceptions. Comparisons should be on similar conditions and not on hindsight.

Thank you said by: Gulshan Kumar Ajmani

Now, what purpose is it solving bringing PAC to book for discharging their duties during 1987 rites? No policeman will follow the orders of taking action against rioters if they will be summoned to court for obeying the orders.  Or for that matter summoning or accepting petitions by courts in Ram Janam Bhoomi case against Hindu leaders? 


I love this free image hosting site for sharing my work

https://o0.nz/

Either way one cannot change history, one can only talk and discuss about it and no matter what fundamentalists say the fact remains that Tajmahal is a precious monument that belongs to the entire nation and we need to preserve it and it safe from the greedy politicians like Mayawati and Mulayam Singh and company..

Pay no mind to those who talk behind your back, it simply means that you are two steps ahead !!!

You do not have permissions to reply to this topic.