FREE Two-Day Shipping for students on millions of items. Learn more |
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
92 of 100 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An Eye opening experience,
By
This review is from: Taj Mahal: The True Story (Paperback)
The Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan in the memory of his wife MumtazMahal built the Taj Mahal. It was built in 22 years (1631 to 1653) by 20,000 artisans brought to India from all over the world. Many people believe Ustad Isa of Iran designed it." This is what your guide probably told you if you ever visited the Taj Mahal. This is the same story I read in my history book as a student in India. No one has ever challenged it except Professor P.N. Oak, who believes the whole world has been duped. In his Mahal's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya). In the course of his research, Oak discovered the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. Shah Jahan then remodeled the palace into his wife's memorial. In his own court chronicle, 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 begin with the name Taj Mahal. He says this term does not occur in any Moghul court papers or chronicles, even after ShahJahan's time. The term "Mahal" has never been used for a building in any of the Muslim countries, from Afghanistan to Algeria. "The unusual explanation that the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal is illogical in at least 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 the 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 palace dedicated to Shiva worshipped by the Rajputs of Agra city. For example, Professor 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 city 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 long well before Shah Jahan's time. 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 Shiva and other objects commonly used for worship rituals in Hindu temples. Fearing political backlash, Indira Gandhi's government tried to have Oak's book withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the first edition with dire consequences. There is only one way to discredit or validate Oak's research. The current Indian government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal under UN supervision, and let international experts investigate. END
48 of 51 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A very good original research work on the Taj Mahal,
By Dr Prakash Narayana Swamy (Lyons, France) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Taj Mahal: The True Story (Paperback)
P. N. Oak expounds an intriguing version of the Taj Mahal's origins in this book. He strongly refutes the traditionally accepted belief that the monument was constructed by 17th century Mughal emperor Shah Jehan as a mausoleum to his deceased wife Mumtaz Mahal, by attempting to prove that it was in fact a 12th century temple-palace seized from Raja Jaisingh of Jaipur and converted to accommodate Mumtaz's tomb. Mr Oak forcefully argues his case on several fronts, his first point being that the only original source of the claim for the Taj Mahal to be Shah Jehan's creation is an inaccurate and misinterpreted journal written by 17th century French jewel merchant and sometime India traveller, Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, and that all other subsequent accounts were either based on Tavernier's unverified statements or were sycophantic additions after Shah Jehan's time. Mr Oak quotes firstly from Mullah Abdul Hamid Lahori, Shah Jehan's own official chronicler, that Mumtaz's body was laid to rest in a "lofty sky-high palace with a majestic dome" procured from Raja Jaisingh. He further quotes from the journals of Tamerlane (1336-1405) and Babur (1483-1530) to show that this palace pre-dates Shah Jehan and also points to the notable absence of any claim by Shah Jehan himself for its construction. He particularly refutes Tavernier's claim of having seen the beginning and end of the entire construction work being carried out during his sojourn at Agra by pointing out the enormous discrepancies between the three periods during which Tavernier stayed at Agra, between 1641 and 1663, and the period over which it is clamed to have been constructed (1631-1653). He also disputes the latter part of the presumed construction period as being implausible as they coincide with Shah Jehan's incarceration, according to all accounts, and he conjectures that what Tavernier saw was actually the work to reconvert it to a mausoleum and not the original construction itself, and advances convincing details on construction costs and labour requirements to support his theory. Mr Oak further ridicules the widely conflicting other existing accounts, which appear to differ on everything from the year of Mumtaz's death to the time and cost spent in building the Taj Mahal. His second point is etymological. Mumtaz's real name was Arjumand Banu Begum, and she was conferred the honorific title Mumtaz-ul-Zamani by her father-in-law Jehangir, but never Mumtaz Mahal, and he contends that she acquired the addition "Mahal" posthumously by virtue of being entombed in a palace, and that on the contrary it was not the monument which acquired her name, as latter-day historians would have us believe. He points out that the term "Mahal" is exclusively used in India, is not of Arabic or Persian origin therefore not of the Mughal period, and contends that it is instead of Sanskrit origin. One can easily identify "Mahal" as a contraction of the Sanskrit "Mahalaya" or "Maha-alaya" meaning "Grand Residence" and when "Taj or Tej" meaning a crown is the qualifying adjective, the term takes on a whole new meaning, i.e. Grand Residence of the Crown, or Grand Royal Palace. "Tejas" is also the Sanskrit term for "resplendence" and "Teja Mahalaya" also means "Resplendent Shrine". The latter contentions would seem to be borne out by the immensity and opulence of the Taj Mahal and its environs, which are more consistent with the structure of a palace complex than that of a mausoleum and Mr Oak elaborates sufficiently on this point. The author also supports his assertions to the Taj Mahal's pre-Shah Jehan Hindu origins with a wealth of corroborative detail, from the "Trishul" present on its dome to specific details on its decor. He is also able to relate several of the terms in current use to Sanskrit origins. It is a pity though, that relevant photographs are not also included in his book.. Mr Oak's reasoning is methodical and his method of drawing conclusions is reminescent of the incisive and logical cross-examination methods of the courtroom. His arguments up to this point can however be considered to be circumstantial. His continual harping on Mughal tyranny and perfidy also detract from his otherwise brilliant analysis, and constitute a digression from the central point, i.e. who built the Taj Mahal. For instance the negative character traits of Shah Jehan and Mumtaz Mahal and their incongruency with the building of a monument of love from one to the other, while being paradoxical, are not necessarily proofs of Shah Jehan's not building the Taj Mahal. It is therefore highly commendable to find that Mr Oak has supplemented his excellent literary research with scientific methods. Radiocarbon dating was performed on some door samples taken from the Taj Mahal by Prof Marvin Mills of the Pratt Institute Archaeological History Department, New York, who with Dr. Evan Williams of the Brooklyn College radiocarbon laboratory, thereby determined that the monument pre-dates Shah Jehan by at least three centuries. Prof Mills has already presented his findings at an annual meeting of the Archaeological Society and it might be interesting to include a reference of one of his relevant publications, in this already well-referenced book. Archaeometric methods are indubitably of great value in determining the true ages of buildings like the Taj Mahal and the fact of their inclusion considerably adds to the strength of Mr Oak's theory. Radiocarbon dating is based on the measurement of the constant decay of C-14 radioactivity in organic materials and is a relatively well-established technique, limited however to materials such as wood and fibres. Thermoluminescence is another recent technique applicable among others, to pottery sherds, baked brick and sediments and is also fairly precise for dates up to the last 3000 years, but its application requires careful sampling which is not easily handled by the non-specialist. Other relevant absolute radioactive dating techniques are the relatively new Optically Stimulated Luminescence method and Uranium-Thorium or Potassium-Argon dosage methods. Any or several of these techniques, properly applied to the study of the Taj Mahal, would unambiguously reveal her true age. It would indeed be in the interest of science, history and posterity, to have a complete study undertaken by competent scientists. The famous Shroud of Turin was proved by C-14 dating to be a medieval era fabrication instead of its acclaimed status as the Shroud which wrapped the body of the Christ. Similarly, scientific dating is the only honest, truly objective means of determining when the Taj Mahal was first built, if and when alterations were carried out, and to what extent. The Taj Mahal complex is also a rich archaeological treasure house that needs to be explored to better understand Indian history and to put all the various myths of whatever origin, to rest. This has nothing to do with belittling the achievements of one community or another. For all we know every one of the stories surrounding the Taj Mahal could be a myth and the truth be elsewhere. This book is an excellent treatise on the Taj Mahal and its origins. In spite of the author's obvious prejudices, it is on the whole, objective, excellently researched, well-referenced and logically presented, and should prove to be a valuable aid to all persons who are interested in obtaining an honest perspective of Indian history.
28 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent Book on Exposing Islam,
By A Customer
This review is from: Taj Mahal: The True Story (Paperback)
ISLAM IS A FAITH OF TERROR! For those trying to be politically correct, you are all fools! The so-called 'Islamic Arch and Dome' are charactoristics of Mauryan Architecture (ce.300BCE-100AD) in Buddhist India long before Islam even arose.Secondly, the Taj, even if not a Hindu Temple, was built by Hindu Hands and according to Hindu Shilpa Shastra, used as early as the Indus-Valley in 4000BCE, the so-called "Islamic Designs" are again seen on pre-Mughal Jaina Temples such as Mt. Abu and Buddhist Monuments. This book exposes Islam for what it really is, not the biased view as seen by Western Eyes to promote it out of foolishness.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
