Talk:Taj Mahal/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Vedic Temple

There's a good text about the Taj Mahal being a vedic temple.

Supposedly, there is evidence that the Taj Mahal was never built by Shah Jahan:

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm

I've altered the Shiva temple stuff. This is a 'way out' theory that's got no historical support whatever, but appeals to Hindu Nationalist sentiment. I've tried to indicate that without being too judgmental. I called Oak a 'conspiracy theorist', which may seem POV, but this is a guy who also thinks the Kaaba at Mecca was originally a Shiva temple! So it seem to me to be fair comment. Paul
Actually the bio on Oak in Wikipedia was fabricated. There is no evidence that an actual P.N.Oak had any theories about other Hindu temples or Mecca. He is only known for writing one book about the Taj Mahal and many of these questions existed long before Hindu Nationalism existed nor does it intentionaly side with their agenda. Look at the talk page on P.N. Oak for more info.

It's very possible that the Taj Mahal was a shiva temple. Mulsims hordes detroyed many hindu temples and replaced them with mosques such as the Ram temple. Also, the ruler had a lot of concubines which is pretty sad.

Yes Muslims destroyed Hindu temples at various times, but Shah Jahan didn't. The Taj itself is clearly Islamic architecture. It bears no resemblemce to Saivite temples. Why Shah Jahan having concubines is 'sad', or in any way relevant I don't know. Paul

'Hindu Nationalist sentiment'? Having read who Paul Barlow (from his own dscription) this is indeed a cheep remark and totally uncalled for. Why you say 'It bears no resemblemce to Saivite temples' reflect the real depth of your knowledge. 'Why Shah Jahan having concubines is 'sad'? For an Islamic emporer to have a concubine may be simply normal but to 'build' a such monument after just one of the members is unheard of. I await the day the full truth can be faced by the 'experts' of the so called 'Taj Mahal'.

Dream on. The evidence of the history of the Taj is overwhelming. Paul B 13:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

When and why?

The article doesn't state when the Taj Mahal was built. Also, it is unclear as to why it was built. If it was a tomb for queen Mahal, that should probably be stated within the first two paragraphs.

I've had a go at addressing the issue. what do you reckon? Leo Africanus
As far as I know, there is nothing to support the notion that the Taj was built as a tomb for Mumtaz Mahal. This to me is a typical romanticist/orientalist myth, you've all heard the "greatest monument to love ever" descriptions in the guidebooks etc. A beautiful idea, but unfortunately not really credible. I would argue that he built it for himself, or at least mainly for himself.
I just read this old comment. PuhLease...So far as I know, no Mughal Emperor built his own tomb. They died hoping (apparently) that family members would come through. --Nemonoman 18:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm a senior in highschool and i did a research paper on the Taj Mahal i made some changes as to the arctile from my paper.


Downloadable MS Word files and pictures of the Taj Mahal

Our online virtual tour "Explore the Taj Mahal" provides extensive free MS Word files on the Taj Mahal (for non-commercial use only).

http:f7r7//www.taj-mahal.net Explore the Taj Mahal, online virtual tour

These files include text and pictures on the history, architecture, people and personalities, engineering, calligraphy, religion, and ongoing conservation efforts. Also available on the site are 360° panoramic photos, movies, narration, music and even flute and oral performances from inside the main mausoleum.

.

picture of Taj Mahal and name of Mumtaz

I have uploaded a picture I took last year while on vacation in India. This was my first edit of a page on wikipedia, so If I havent done the copyright stuff correct, can some pls do it for me? I have written the copyright info in the infor part.

I have also changed Mumtaz' name to the correct one according to Badshahnama (Shah Jahan's Chronicle)

Origin of the name

It is written in the article that the origin of mahal is arabic, meaning place... it is much more logical that mahal is from the hindi (sanskrit) word mahal, meaning palace... I have read that the name is from the sanskrit mahal, which also is logical because Shah Jahan lived and built the palace in India... what do you other say ?

I agree! The arabic attribution contradicts everything I've heard. And I've heard a lot. Also Persian. NEVER arabic.--Nemonoman 14:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the book the Romance of the Taj Mahal the name is likely a corruption of the name Mumtaz Mahal as early reports called it the Rauza (tomb) of Mumtaz Mahal. --964267sr 02:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The Vedic temple theory

I see some discussion here about the "vedic temple" theory for the Taj Mahal, and I also see its mention in the main article, albeit with disclaimers. I am no historian and I do not claim to have any online sources that you have not seen already and that can verify or reject the theory. However, there is one thing that I can say: I happen to live in Pune, India, which also happens to be the city where Mr. P.N.Oak lives. He is well known as a crank here. He has also claimed that places like London and Lancashire have Hindu origins! Anyway, Pune also happens to be a major centre for Indology, and houses two premier academic institutions for Indology with international acclaim: the Deccan College and the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. I would suggest you to get in touch with them if you need help from academics to check the veracity of Mr. Oak's claims.

Thank you for your comments. I personally have no doubt at all that Oak's claims are utter nonsense, but as you see from thje discussion page he has his admirers, who tend to be persistent in making changes to the main text, which I have many times reverted. I think we have to have an acknowledgement of Oak's "theory", because it is so very popular with Hindutva writers, but it should be kept firmly in its place as a fringe argument! Paul B 14 March 14.53 (UTC)
No it should not be included. Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy theorists. Whats next? Place a theory about how Israel was behind 911? Trust me, you would be hard pressed to find many people in India who subscribe to this specific nonsense. If Wikipedia is one of the boons of internet, then a platform for crazies with html knowledge is the bane. (Blacksun 04:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC))
Wikipedia most certainly is a place for conspiracy theorists, and there's not much can do about that! If the theory is not included, there will be accusations of suppression, revert wars, etc. The same is true of other articles. See Olmec for example, in which the talk page is almost entirely about the very fringe Afrocentrist theory that the Olmec were migrants from West Africa. The best way to address this problem is to discuss the issue openly. This also has the advantage that people coming to the article who may have read this stuff somewhere on the internet can assess the theory. And by the way, the "Jewish plot" theory of 9/11 is covered on Wkipedia (9/11 conspiracy theories.Paul B 15:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If ever there was a historian who is "unhistorical" it is PN Oak. What he writes is utter garbage!! Taj Mahal being a Hindu temple? Come on guys!!! Not even Shivraj Singh or WIN would believe this (unless if they're really crazy!!!) I suppose next Oak will claim that Mecca is a Hindu city!!! Ha!!!! -User: Afghan Historian

Well Shivraj has recently taken to usinf Stephen Knapp as a source, so you never know. And actually Oak does claim that Mecca is a Hindu city. See Kaaba a Hindu temple.Paul B 01:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is quite surprising! Yet there have been some questions on the Taj that I remember from visiting it when I was a child back in the early 70's. When you visit the Taj there are sections that are closed to the public. There have been much speculation on what these sections could hold. The other question that was asked during the visit is that some of the doors were carbon dated as being at least a few hundred years older than the building of the structure. It is possible for Hindu zealots to take advantage of these questions, but that does not mean that these mysteries do not exist.

Notes on my changes

The black taj story is a legend. The actual story of the ruins on the other side of the river is very enlightening. Shah Jahan actually incorporated the Jumna into the design of the gardens.

Looks like a few section headers couldn't hurt.

Tried to align the content to the headers to provide a narrative flow to the article.

I'd personally love to dump all the Shiva Temple nonsense, but you can't fight city hall... --Nemonoman 01:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


Kaaba

I was interested in Paul’s comments that The Kaaba and Taj being a Vedic Temple (originally) being not worthy of thought.

I find it strange that the influence if India via Hinduism and Buddhism (primarily) stretches as far east as Korea but we see very little evidence of if to the west, and the assumption(due to this odd fact) there could never have been any influence on Arabia from India.

It was the custom of the Muslim invaders to destroy Hindu Temples across Northern India and build Mosques over the ruins. This is indisputable, also I believe that Muhammad’s uncle (Abu Talib) is a documented Vedic poet, do you dispute this also?

More investigation is needed in the pree-Islamic roots of Arabia to seek the religion before Islam; The Kabba is an ancient Temple (as documented in the Koran). Its origins are certainly not Islamic and it would be fascinating to find out the true purpose of the Kaaba and the Black Stone within.

As a Hindu I’m constantly having to re interpret my Country’s past. From the blatant lies of an Aryan Invasion theory by the like’s of Max Muller, to today when even a suggestion that Islamic shrines might have a Vedic origin as “Hindu Nationalism” and being greeted with derision. S.M.


I most certainly do dispute that Abu Talib ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib was "documented as a Vedic poet". There is zero evidence of this whatever. He is thought to have been a "pagan", but within the coinext of Arabic Semitic traditions, not Vedic ones. There is no historical evidence of any Vedic culture to the west of the Indus Valley. The Aryan Invasion Theory, so called, is not a "blatant lie". The vast majority of scholars still accpt the evidence for Indo-Iranian migrations into India as overwhelming. If you had ever read any books by Max Muller, I doubt you'd characterise him in this wildly inaccurate way. Try reading "India - what can it teach us". Some Muslim invaders and fanatics did destroy Hindu temples. Not all of them. There is no evidence that Shah Jahan did, unlike his son Aurangzeb. Paul B 10:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


Thank you for prompt response. The history of pre-Islamic Arabia is repressed as long as no investigations can be made. To address pre-Islamic Arabia as Pagan (an amorphous word I’m sure you’ll agree) is just re-iterating an Islamic bias. The 7th century is not that far back into the depths of time (and it's people were advanced).

I do not know what the history of pre-Islamic Arabia; I doubt any body truly does as any investigations will not be permitted. There are too many similarities between Hindu ritual and Islamic ritual for it to be a mere coincidence.

My comments on Max Muller were of his assumptions that Vedic culture was bought to India from the Aryans as false.

I (un-like your good self) do not dispute your positioning (as) truth is multifaceted and not fixed to one point. I am investigating this and will not dismiss any theory until it’s been positively proven otherwise. I am open to this as I am open to all.

Thank you again for your enlightening comments on this page. S.M. 25thg Aug 2005 11am (sic)

SM, I used the word pagan (in inverted commas) because there isn't a more specific label for pre-Islamic Arabian practices. Yes, the attitude of the Saudis to archaeology certainly doesn't help, but in the absence of written sources out knowledge is likely to remain sketchy. However, we clearly have more knowledge of Vedic and Zoroastrian history, which suggest the existance of an Indo-European "mother culture" spreading into Iran and India. See the article Indo-Aryan migration. That's what Max Muller believed and that's what most modern scholars believe. These peoples were known as "Aryans" when Muller was writing. The terms now used are Indo-Iranians and Indo-Aryans. Yes the Nazis and some earlier race-theorists argued that these people were blond "Nordic" warriors (see Nordic theory), but Muller certainly didn't; he opposed such racism throughout his life. I am certainly open to new and diverse theories, but when theories are essentially ideologically motivated, I am very sceptical. Thanks for your comments. Paul B 12:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


Thank you again Paul. Just to point out all non scientific theory's are essentially idelogical in nature. The past can never be know fully.

I have read Muller in the past and taken his word on Indian history although there is now a counter view. If I may quote from Wikimedia itself

"There are others, however, who take a completely different view, and do not accept that there was any specific Aryan migration from the west to India. These people tend to see a reverse migration from Western India to Central Asia, and from there into Europe. They claim either that the Proto-Indo-European language originated in India, or that Sanskrit was the actual proto Indo-European language and that it was the source of all later Indo-European languages" http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml

I presentley hold the above view. It's funny how just about EVERYTHING has to originate in Europe isnt it?

I take your views on the word Pagan, I prefer to use the term Pre-Islamic. Not that I have a problem with that word but it does have negative connotations. Infact I see Hinduism as Pagan as it's a nature religon.

I'm in the process of reading up on the "mother culture" you mentioned and will in the goodness of time report back, to cull some views from your good self and others of my findings and wheather my views are sound.. SM 2.07pm 25/08/2005

More on Oak's Theories

Dear SM/194...
What's the relevance of the Kaaba discussion to the Taj Mahal? Not much.
As I read it, Kaaba comment was simply made to suggest that Oak has not simply created a theory about the Taj, but about other famous [apparently] non-Hindu monuments as well.
I very much enjoy well-reasoned contrarian views that are difficult to prove or dispute. I enjoy the balloon-pricking arguments of the "Intelligent Design" crowd, and the "mercury in vaccines causes autism" theories making the rounds.
So I read with great hope the websites about the Taj based on Oak's research, and I regret to say that I was disappointed. His research is doubtful, his factual basis is minimimal, his hypotheses require enormous leaps of faith, and his conclusions appear utterly without merit.
I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln in a debate:
Opponent: How many legs does a cow have?
Lincoln: Four.
Opponent: Now say the tail is also a leg...Now how many legs does it have?
Lincoln: Four...Calling a cow's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Calling the Taj a Hindu Temple doesn't make it one.
--Nemonoman 18:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Nemonoman

Thank you for your comments and quote.

I’ve re-read my comments and I do not state that anything is (for sure) Hindu (or otherwise). My bone of contention (and this is why I’ve included the Kabba within this) is that without a through scientific/archaeological study such theories (as Oak’s) begin to appeal to a certain section of the Hindu community that feel hard done by the Muslim invasion.

Until the various Islamic authorities allow further investigation this will snowball…I fear with dire consequences.

The Islamisits refusal to allow this is baffling as I’ve been reading the Koran and there is no mention that knowledge of the past is the pastime of the Infidel.

“Knowledge is power” the refusal to allow investigation is a form of fear.

What is there to hide?

Hopefully nothing, but until they (the Muslims) hold back on not allowing such investigations (to refute these theories) the likes of Oak will profligate and we all shall suffer.

Thank you again for your comments. SM 31/08/2005 9.42am GMT

Dear 192 -
Nor did I suggest that YOU state that anything is for sure Hindu. I did suggest that OAK did, however.
I have a theory that your house is made of green cheese. I am appalled by your refusal to acknowledge that validity of my theory, which is based on my observation that parts of your house look sort of green! I insist that you let me take samples of your house to prove my point! Any refusal means that you have something to hide!

--Nemonoman 13:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)---- (oops...forgot my signature)

Dear Anon....Nemonomoan (now that I know!)

my house is open to all.....: )x

Also to point out I've added a link to illustrate the counter view of the Aryan Invasion Theory (above) and also here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml Peace to you all.

SM 31/08/2005 3.17pm (GMT)

SM
Seriously, I must ask what the relevance is to the Taj article?
The generally accepted history of the Taj, ie, that it was built by Shah Jahan, etc., is backed by an overwhelming preponderance of documented evidence.
Oak's theory that the the Taj was a Shiva Temple has little evidentiary backup. He asks that you squint at pictures of roses on the Taj wall to see a hidden "OM".
By contrast, one might visit the mosque in Varanasi that Aurangzeb built on the site of a Shiva temple (at least that's the theory, again generally accepted and backed by an overwhelming proponderance of evidence). There with no effort at all, one can easily see stones sculpted with traditional Shavite elements used in the walls of the Mosque. I myself easily could see many such stones from 60-70 meters away.
In the US (and other countries, I suppose), courts base action on 'probable cause'. A state prosecutor must show enough evidence that a judge finds that there is 'probable cause' for a case...that a jury might potentially agree that the evidence would support the state's case.
In Oak's case for the Taj, there is no 'probable cause'.
That one crackpot has come out with a loopy theory about the Taj has no relationship to your comments (with which I sympathize very much) about whether Vedic history was unfairly or inaccurately revised.
Oak's Taj theory, however, isn't a case of unfair revisionism. It's just wrong. Pointing to the Kaaba, London, or the Arayan invasion has no real relevance to the Taj, which from all reasonable evidence is exactly what it appears to be: A Mughal mausoleum. --Nemonoman 18:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Nemonoman My issue is with the inability of Islam to allow such investigations either at the Taj or elsewhere. This in effect fuelling the Hindu extremists. It not unreasonable for an indigenous population to question the actions of the invader.

Personally I'd love to see why a mausoleum has so many rooms. You are probably right there's very little in the claims,. But I get upset when it’s dismissed out of hand without investigation (if nothing then to dispel such rumours).

I’m still arguing with some that Arabic numerals are not Arabic in origin(!).

It seems that some want to right India and Hinduism out of history. So I do get a little upset. My apologies if I came across as extreme.

SM 17.52 (GMT) 1/09/2005

Strange, what does Taj mahal have to do with Islam/Hinduism? This is a monument of love, Shah Jahan had it built to commemorate the death of his wife. Why would ANY religion be "able" or "unable" to allow investigation on this? Indians should be proud to have such a magnificient edifice ... I believe almost all are, except for ultra-nationalist, illogical fanatics. As Nemo commented, Oak's claim is so outright hilarious, it doesn't warrant any "investigation". If someone comes to you and claims he can fly like a bird, would you "investigate" that? A saying in science (I forgot by which scientist) is that if you make an amazing claim, you should better come with amazing proofs. If someone claims the sun rises in the west, that person needs to back it up, others don't have to waste their time investigating such claims. There are always nutcases, like the guy who claims NASA never had apollo-11 landing on moon. The arabic numerals are definitely not Arabic, they originated from India, arabs brought them to Europe. The Arabs did a large scale job of translating and preserving the science of greece and other places that they conquered. As for the "indigenous population questioning the actions of the invader", Shah Jahan was a 5th generation Indian born and brought up in India, how is he an invader? Finally, dispelling a crazy theory doesn't mean Nemo is against Hinduism or India, merely it means Oak's theory is baseless. Taj Mahal is a wonder, the world need to appreciate its beauty and cherish its history. Thanks. --Ragib 17:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
SM -- I find hard to figure how "Islam" is preventing research into Taj history. Isn't it a monument owned and protected by the Indian Government? I can't find evidence that the present government is particularly Islamic in character; the BJP government sure as well wasn't. So how is Islam preventing this research?
The BJP government, in my opinion, was pretty agressively Hindu in character, and made a big deal out of a lot of marginal scholarship regarding a favorite historical personage of mine, Shivaji. So there was lots of precedent for revisionist historical research. If there were an iota of truth in Oak's theories, I think the BJP would have pursued further research agressively. That they didn't do so speaks volumes. --Nemonoman 22:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Also to speak to Ragib's point:

Shah Jahan was a 5th generation Indian born and brought up in India, how is he an invader?

Shah Jahan's father was the son of Hindu Rajput Princess. His Mother was a Hindu Rajput Princess. Even in the racially conscious U.S., he'd be pretty much accepted as a Rajput Prince of the Blood. His son Aurangzeb was ALSO the offspring of a Hindu Rajput Princess...there wasn't a whole lot of non-rajput in him. Born in India, raised in India, stayed in India...heck, in a lot of ways, these guys CREATED India as Unified Country. Like Rodney Dangerfield said, "I don't get no respect.":I recognize the mentality. I live in San Diego California. A neighbor of mine, 72 years old, moved here from Chicago when he was nine, and still isn't a 'native' -- at least according to the 'natives' -- such as the 20 year-old boy next door, who's lived here only one-third as long. I've only lived in this place for 15 years, and my children -- one of whom was 2 when he moved here -- are still sort of outsiders to a certain breed of San Diegans.--Nemonoman 00:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

-Actually Nemonoman you are a bit off. Aurangzeb's mother was a Persian, however 2nd generation settled in India, but still pure blood. He's still mostly of local Indian origin so it's pointless calling him Non-Indian. Most Indians themselves are not fully indigenous, at least not paternally. In Northern India, among Indo-Aryan speakers, their Paternal ancestors arrived from the Caspian region 3,000 years ago. The Dravidians also arrived from the Middle East 2,000 years earlier. The aboriginal Indians are dying out in the Andamans and exist among the tribal populations. I learned this from an Indian friend of mine. -User: Afghan Historian

I am neither a Hindu nor a Muslim, but what interested me to add to your "discussions" here is the fevour of your arguments. Both of you are right and both of you are wrong. We as humanity have often perceived our own truths when presents with the facts and ideas and often it has take the "crackpots" to push what we label "Discovery" to new depths and meaning. In the 17th century it was widely believed that the earth was the centre of the Universe and Galileo was considered a "crackpot". A hundred years ago we found the electron, and now our world is run by electronics. Are you telling me Nenonoman because everyone says that Shah jahan built the Taj, that we must take it at face value?? That we can't question this is absurd!

Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." I do not know about the voracity of Oak's claims nor do I stay so grounded in believing in all that I am told. I would say there are probably two reasons that I can think of as to why the Indian Goverment perhaps hasn't examined or tested the claims. Firstly the Taj mahal is one of the Seven Wonders of the world, and this is due to it's structure, it's beauty and also it's well published history as the ultimate love story. To risk ruppee (Dollar, Pound, Euro) signs that the Taj represents in terms of tourism would be both foolhardy and not profit worthy. Secondly politically it would not be a wise move as it would be asure way to antogise the very fragile structures of an already melting pot of a nation.

Nemonoman is right as is ragbir in that we can not follow all claims without some substantive evidence, however afew questions arise that make no sense to me and maybe not to others.

Why do some believe there are many rooms? (upto 22 hidden rooms?) Why was an octagonal well built for a mausoleum? Why are there countless examples of walled up rooms and doors?

I'm not interested in proving Oak correct or wrong about the Taj (this is not an issue of Kaaba or London or even the Aryan race, they are definately not linked to the isssue of the Taj), but withough a proper and in=depth archaelogical survey being conducted of the Taj mahal the true answers and infutable evidence that Nemonoman seemed to accept are not fully valid. We are lucky that the basis of our arguments exists and is not similar to the likes of Atlantis which can be argues in both directions. The Taj exists and the answers can and will only be found there. One day we may learn the full truth...

--[GG] 16:00, 09 October 2005 ----

You wrote: I do not know about the voracity of Oak's claims
Suggest you take a look at Oak's claims. They are not credible. I could just as easily come up with a list of 100 reasons to believe that the Taj was built by aliens, or by monkeys. Supposing a hypothesis doesn't mean that a throrough investigation of the hypothesis is warranted. The law requires 'prima facie' evidence for a case to go forward -- unless a case has SOME credibility on its face, there is no reason to waste time arguing it. Oak's theories -- or my 'aliens' or 'monkeys' theories, for that matter -- don't cut it. There is NO prima facie evidence that the Taj had any different origins from those historically documented.

--Nemonoman 15:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Not credible, but certainly 'voracious'! Sikandarji 21:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

demolition story

The version of the demolition story added by the previous editor probably comes from here [1]. It's an oft-repeated tale in several variations, but is treated with scepticism these days I believe,. However, it's well-known and often repeated as fact, so I've added a version to the myths and theories section. Paul B 20:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet another link to PN Oak's "Evidence"

All, I am jumping into this without much experience and this is the first time I am trying anything here. So apologies in advance if I have stepped on any toes. I have added a reference to V S Godbole's research on this subject which is far more thorough and cross-referencable than anything that I have read before. The link is included for the more curious amongst you. Hope this is taken in the right spirit. I dont think we have heard the final word on this yet. (unsigned; comment by 88.111.50.230).

Dear 88.111.50.230: I am pleased that you have decided to join this band of editors starting with this article. Please believe me when I say that the writings of Oak lack any reasonable credibility. These matters have been chewed over pretty thoroughly as you might see if you look at the other talk above. It's often reasonable to sort of examine the "talk" page of an article to better understand its history. --Nemonoman 06:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Nemonoman, Thank you for your comment. I have not read Oak's work in full (only in sumamry) so I will refrain from commenting on that. However, what I have added is not "Yet another link to P N Oak's "Evidence" - but a link to a completely different book, painstakingly researched, based on evidence from historic European and other accounts, and having no reference to Oak's work at all. I will repeat what I said before - this work is far more thorough and cross-referencable than anything that I have read before. As someone has already noted on this page, I think it is important that the truth be known and the best way to do this would be to investigate all the evidence and examine the locked rooms and the purported "photographs" and other "odd" stuff that does not quite fit with the theory of a monument built anew by Shah Jahan. Thanks

60.248.163.220: Why not get a wiki-editor name if you plan to be involved? It will help this dialog.

I have read the link to the website. It LOOKS to ME like another rehash of the Oak pseudo-science. It certainly sets out to find evidence that Oak's theories are right, this time by references, not to the supposed builders of the Taj, but to the comments of 19th Century euro tourists, some of which he claims contradict each other. The tourists don't even have anything or enlightening interesting to say. Godbole strains all credibility in his conclusions. His reference work may have been thoroughly researched, but his conclusions are just a mess.

Look, the last Indian Government was totally capable of reviewing and revising history along political lines if it wanted to. Look at what happened to the history of Shivaji! This fantasy that the Taj is some sort of fraud, that it is a Hindu temple that has been subsumed by a vast conspiracy -- this fantasy has no credibility, at all, or the former Indian government would have forced it to be taught in their schools.

I'm going to write a well reserached article showing that the Taj is built of ice, not marble. --Nemonoman 15:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoever winds up winning out on this article's argument - and I do hope for everyone's sake it's the rational accepted explanation - is it possible to clean up the dirty Wiki code at the bottom that contains the link to the crackpot theory? It makes the whole page look sloppy. I'll do it if nobody else wants to. -- --Sky 20:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Nemonoman...your comments are bordering on the offensive in your tone (not your beliefs, which you have a right to hold). Please desist. If you have comments against any reverence then address them instead of making glib comments about aliens or monkeys. You are dealing with the newly independent countries struggling to come to terms with a thousand years of oppression from alien cultures. Please be more sensitive. SM GMT 12.06

Oh don't be absurd. And the urge to label the history of India as unrelenting oppression by people characterised as "alien" might well be seen as part of the problem. Paul B 13:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Up to four thousand temples raised to the ground the systematic economic rape of India (in which she was reduced to a “third world” country at independence) sounds like repression to me. And again your lack of respect to other views (no matter how “absurd” you may feel they are) this is an open discussion emotive language and bad manners are no substitutes for respect for other peoples opinions. Let’s keep this discussion cold please. SM GMT 16.30 8th Dec 2005-12-08

If you want to keep the discussion "cold" then stop making inflamatory statements about "the systematic economic rape of India" etc. It is wholly irrelevant to the topic under discussion, highly POV, and pointlessly provocative. Nemonoman has discussed the evidence regarding the history of the Taj; so should you. You can't claim rights to sympathetic treatment of an argument about architectural history on the basis of victimhood. Paul B 11:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nemonoman wrote "I'm going to write a well reserached article showing that the Taj is built of ice, not marble."

I'd like to read this "well researched article" but I've been to the Taj Mahal and unfortunately for you it is made of marble. Once again you fail to grasp the concept of discussion, and have introduced wholly ridiculous concepts. Yes I can see that you are saying that not every paper written means it is true, and that we must follow certain boundaries when presenting thoeries. But humanity has grown from curiosity and questioning. Infact I have a question for you Nemonoman - Are there rooms that are now sealed off? If so, why do YOU think that is? GG - Feb 2007

Please see Sikandarji's comment in the "Revamped PN Oak" discussion below:
Sealed rooms my Aunt Fanny -- the Taj is raised on a plinth like all other Mughal tombs, and in this instance it has been left hollow and unused because of the risk of flooding from the Jumna
You are responding to a discussion that is 14 months old. Please instead add your opinions to RFC below.--Nemonoman 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

cleanup-priority

Hi, I have added {{cleanup-priority}} to the article, since for such an important article, it does seem sub-par (no offence to the editors involved) in terms of content & presentation, besides lacking a reference section, a poor lead,etc., This is pretty sad, since there are some great free images (including one featured picture) and the content, especially on Construction and design is quite good. See also the articles at Category:Wikipedia articles needing priority cleanup. It could probably be nominated for next week's INCOTW, so atleast it could be improved atleast to an A-class article. --Pamri • Talk 13:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Working on cleanup

I am trying to cleanup this article to a better standard. Starting at the top and working down. Will cite sources as part of the complete process; please be patient. Expect to finish by 1 Jan--Nemonoman 03:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposing to delete pictures

I propose to delete the following pictures from this article: They seem redundant.
Taj Mahal in Moonlight.jpg

American Soldiers at the Taj, 1942
Monument of love and symmetry.jpg

The Taj Mahal]]

--Nemonoman 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted the gallery and pointed link to Wikimedia Commons taj gallery which has all these images and more.--Nemonoman 00:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking for additional pictures

I am actively seeking pictures of the following:

  • Decoration of the mosque, particularly the floor
  • Sandstone dados of the mosque
  • The buildings at the center parts of the Taj wall...west side building is now a museum
  • Close ups of the spandrels (flower decorated corners of archways
  • Close ups of caligraphy
  • Close ups of the tomb interior
  • The cenotaphs
  • The jali screen around the centotaphs
  • The slim flower topped pinnacles or guldastas, which extend from shafts on the exterior of the Taj
  • finial atop the main dome
  • lotus decoration of main dome
  • and especially::::
  • >> Aerial or similar picture of the entire site! <<

--Nemonoman 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for your information. Taj Mahal generates nearly 90% of the total revenues of Archaelogical Society of India. This means Taj vs. rest of India. SPH http://www.uniqueindiatour.com

You can't make an omelette

without making a real mess in the kitchen. I've been adding new elements to the current article, without removing old elements. Net result is, right now, this article is horribly uneven. This should be improved within the next 5 days as new sections replace old.

sorry in the meantime. --Nemonoman 01:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's getting better all the time...--Nemonoman 17:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Revamped PN Oak section

I have revamped the PN Oak "Taj was a temple?" section.

  • Calls Oak a writer, not a historian
  • Notes the expansion of his theory to cover essentially all Mughal tombs
  • Claims based on confused history and conspiracy theories
  • Notes popularity of theory
  • Says theory rejected by legitimate scholars
  • Notes outcome of supreme court suit

I hope that this is NOT POV, but rather a reasonable documentation of highly, highly questionable scholarship.

I have read Oak's essays now, and I can't believe how ill-informed this fellow is. His theory is popular because of its assertion, not because of any facts to back it up. Reminds me of the "Intelligent Design" debate in my country (US), which is even more embarrassing.--Nemonoman 17:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


The evidence showing the hundreds of rooms sealed by jahan himself is more for Oak's claims.Even BBC suggests that indians should allow legitimate scholars to enter into that sealed rooms and to invistigate. -Common Man

Yup, and I'm going to claim that Shivaji built Victoria Terminus and was responsible for introducing railways to India - oh no, wait a minute, the Shiv Sena already have! How disappointing. Of course you know that nuclear weapons/steam engines/electric toothbrushes/nylon (strike out word which do not apply) were mentioned in the Vedas and are therefore Indian inventions? This sort of thing is so tiresome.....India has a glorious scientific, artistic, cultural and intellectual heritage without making these sorts of spurious claims: and the fact that the Taj Mahal was commissioned and largely designed by a Muslim monarch does not mean it isn't an Indian monument. The thinking behind Oak's assertions (namely that nothing Muslims do is Indian, and that they have contributed nothing to Indian civilisation) chills me to the marrow. Sikandarji 21:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

And, by the way, that BBC 'story' which Oakwallahs have been citing is an account of the Taj written on one of their blogs by a member of the public (I wonder who - perhaps a Hindu software engineer living in Alabama with nothing better to do than stir up hatred). It does not represent the views of the corporation, and the suggestion that it does is typical of the dishonesty of Oak's approach and that of his supporters. Sikandarji 07:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Hindu Nationalists are making a mess of this issue. The sealed rooms ARE a legitimate mystery, and maybe they are being kept from the public for communal harmnony reasons knowing India's history...yet, reading through this article I think maybe we should all just leave religion behind and actually open these rooms up and see what it's all about. It shouldn't be about religion but about the truth. Also, Nemonemon, you seem to be rather as fanatical at the other extreme. Why do you insist that we just close our minds and close the doors? Is the world still flat?
Sealed rooms my Aunt Fanny - the Taj is raised on a plinth like all other Mughal tombs, and in this instance it has been left hollow and unused because of the risk of flooding from the Jumna. There's no mystery here, let alone a reason to destroy parts of one of the most beautiful buildings in the world at the behest of malicious cranks. You think Oak and his crowd would be satisfied if the panels facing the Jumna were smashed and nothing was found (nothing would be)? They'd just argue that the remains of this spurious 'temple' were buried underneath and that the destruction of the Taj was necessary to establish the 'truth'. Enjoy it, appreciate it and admire it for what it is: a Mughal tomb. Sikandarji 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed cleanup tag

I think this article has been sufficiently cleaned up to justify removing the tag. I'm pretty much done with my edits. Can't wait to see who will first replace my work with the astonishing revelation that the Taj is an 11th century Shiva Temple!!--Nemonoman 19:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And the winner is...

Revision as of 20:35, 5 January 2006 JPushkarH (Talk | contribs) Replaced article with Oaks 110 points web page. Elapsed time to revelation: 12 days! --Nemonoman 19:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

HTML and table tags

Could someone explain to me why this article has so many table tags in it? All they serve to do is to make the article full of white space at some screen reolutions. I have jet to see a place where they improve things overall. The one exception might be for groups of pictures. If no one has any objections, I am going to remove the ones around the textual elements. Michael L. Kaufman 15:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I put them in, and I agree that they may appear to be a pain in the ass at first glance.
On a section by section basis, the tags may not appear necessary. To understand the reasoning behind their inclusion, I suggest that you remove them on a PAGE basis. Without them, the pictures run all over the page, crossing over sections and creating spacing in a way that to me seemed quite confusing.
Preview table removal on a page basis to see the effect and the motive for their inclusion should be more obvious.
If there's a way to get rid of them that maintains continuity of placement and association, go for it. I used standard HTML tags instead of Wiki table tags because wikitable tags are incredibly obscure, as opposed to HTML tags which are ugly but more obvious and more easily edited, in my opinion.--Nemonoman 15:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
!Removal of table in interior decoration section is an improvement, however!--Nemonoman 15:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments

The article is beiing peer reviewed. See comments here.--Nemonoman 16:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

My work area for Taj changes

Click here to see my work area for taj--Nemonoman 01:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Galleries vs tables of images

My work page shows comparisons of the current tables of images vs galleries.--Nemonoman 01:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Too many subheads?

Peer reviewer =Nichalp «Talk»= says "too many subheads".

Agreed that the subheads have resulted in an ENORMOUS table of contents. I think that the subheads help to improve the logical flow and presentation.

You can emulate the automatic subheads created by === and ====. The emulated versions don't show up in the TOC, but they are a pain the ass.

You can see how they work here --Nemonoman 01:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hindi translation to Taj Mahal

Can someone help me understand the relevance of the Hindi translation of Taj Mahal? The words appear not be Hindi in origin; typically the name is thought to be a corruption of Persian (which I realize has a relationship to Hindi, but also to Urdu, etc.). Why Hindi in particular? Why not Urdu or Persian? Why a translation at all? --Nemonoman 15:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats because Taj Mahal is located in Agra, Uttar Pradesh and Hindi is the most spoken language in that region. Taj Mahal is not a Persian word. Most of the people in North India in the time of Shah Jahan spoke Hindustani and Hindi is nothing but a hybrid of Hindustani, Prakrit and Sanskrit. Translation of Taj Mahal in Hindi is completely justified. Thanks --Deepak|?????? 16:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hindi translation is necessary,for atleast it is in top three of widely spoken languages of the world,for atleast it is located in India were it is the national language,for atleast it is built by people who speak hindi. -Common Man

Dear "Common Man":
By your reasoning we should also include a Chinese translation as well (another of the top 3 languages), also Urdu and Turkish (at least) for primary builders. The Hindi is simply the name "Taj Mahal" transliterated...it's not like the Hindi version is a different name, or has other non-english meaning.
In this english language article, inclusion of Hindi or other tranliterations of Taj Mahal appears to me to have little relevance.--Nemonoman 20:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear "Neomonoman":
Hindi translation of Taj Mahal is required because it would reflect and be consistent with the Three Language Formula. These are guidelines which the Government of India has used since 1968 for official documents, road signage, etc. that insists written material must be available in English, Hindi, and the predominant regional language. Hindi is the official language of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh where the Taj Mahal is located and it is justified to include that "translation." --L1CENSET0K1LL 10:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi LTK: This article is not an official Indian document. Your rationale doesn't explain the Urdu transliteration. This approach is certainly an exception. Only 1 other World Heritage site in India category article -- out of 23 -- has a Hindi translation. An addtional site has an Urdu translation -- which based on your rationale, should be Hindi not Urdu. The consistent approach for these World Heritage Sites in India articles suggests that the Hindi translation found here is not desired. Absent a Wiki-style manual that requires it (not a Indian Government style edict) I will remove it, or at the very least, move it to the "Origins of the Name" section. --Nemonoman 15:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I have to say is that let the article be as it is. There's no point arguing over this issue. --Deepak|?????? 15:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deepak: Can you explain why you feel that there is no point arguing? If I were to remove the transliterations, would there then still be no point in arguing?

Also, since when did this discussion page item turn into an arugment?

I opened this discussion topic when I asked for someone to explain the relevance of the Hindi translation. Since then, Urdu transliteration has been added as well. The relevance has NOT been explained, and the rationales offered for them are mixed up, inconsistent, and not very convincing. Apparently, one can just add translations and transliterations willy-nilly.

A better idea would be to agree on a style and apply it consistently.

Unlike some editors, I offer opportunities for collaboration and discussion before beginning edits. This only seems like "arguing" to editors who would make such changes without concern of their peers.

Perhaps I need to change my methods. --Nemonoman 15:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The relevance has definitely been explained. Hindi is the most spoken language in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, the region where Taj Mahal is located. Isn't that convincing enough? If not, then please note that Hindi happens to be an integral part of Hindustani language. Shah Jahan spoke Hindustani not Persian or Arabic. Since Hindustani is no longer spoken, the translation of Taj Mahal in Hindi and Urdu (the two main branches) is completely justified. Also note that I do appreciate your method of discussing the concerns of fellow peers. Thanks --Deepak|?????? 16:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

So the rule you are setting forth, as I understand it, is that India World Heritage Sites will have their names translated into the main language of their region. Also, the name will be translated into the language of the principal patron, or into the descendant language of the language of the principal patron if the language of the principal patron is no longer a 'living language'.

To carry this logic through to, for example, the Vatican, the name would be translated into Italian, and also into French, Spanish and Portuguese, since the language of its original patron no longer is a 'living' language.

Finally, I think it's clear from this discussion that the so-called "Hindu Temple" theory of Oak, etc., has been settled. Or should we also consider Raput transliterations?

I think text should clarify why these transliterations are included. I also wonder whether they deserve to be the very first facts introduced by the article. --Nemonoman 18:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not have a Hindi version after all Taj Mahal is in India and I am sure there will be Indians who read this Article. If we go by the Logic that its an English Language article then there should be no translation at all in any article in any language by the same logic so why are their these translations? if you have it for other then there is no reason not to have it for Taj Mahal (unsigned)

Why I quit editing this article. The opening sentence of the article now not only includes English, Hindi, Urdu, and International Phonetic Alphabet translations, a new editor has recently added an Arabic translation. After being informed of my bias, lack of knowledge, etc., above I'm certainly not going to be the one to remove that little gem of knowledge.. --Nemonoman 17:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This might be a bit late to come back to this discussion, but could you substantiate this claim Deepak "Shah Jahan spoke Hindustani not Persian or Arabic"? I find this to be quite contrary to my understanding that Persian was the royal and intellectual language of the Mughal dynasty. At any rate, Devanagri was never the script used for the language that was spoken by the Mughals. This fact seems to have been taken for granted beyond doubt and dispute throughout history. Aslamt 05:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Temple theory

It may also be mentioned how some of these self-sttyled scholars argue that it was a temple with the name "Tejo Mahal" - loosely meaning divinely lighted place. --Gurubrahma 10:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Was the Taj originally a temple or a palace?

you got to be kidding me. whats next ? Statue of liberty was a statue of some hindu god as well ? that was later through a consipiracy against hinduism "reconstructed" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalsurgeon (talk • contribs)

You may borrow a copy (from your local library - most likely, it shall not be available) of Taj Mahal: The True Story and read more, if you wish. However, I am talking of this book, and not presenting my views, as we do not do research here - but building the encyclopedia. --Bhadani 10:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Er...has anyone noticed that the article now consistes of the phrase 'the real taj mahal is in vegas pwned' repeated over and over again? It just blows my mind that there are actually people out there moronic enough to waste time doing crap like this.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.166.91 (talk • contribs) on 27.04.2006

You should register and try to fight vandalism here - only shouting is not going to help. --Bhadani 15:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Er...did you notice that this lasted for precisely one minute and was removed while you were writing your comment.Paul B 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This theory is about as valid as a certain other theory promoted by certain indviduals. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Really? Are you sure it isn't more valid than a certain other theory, but less valid than that other other theory that's promoted by some people somewhere? Paul B 15:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Was the Taj originally a temple or a palace?"

What is this nonsense doing in this article? Oak is a dangerous, hate-mongering charlatan with no academic credentials of any kind. His assertions are pure fantasy, on a par with those attention-seekers who claim to have been abducted by aliens. If Wikipedia is going to become a crank site for the promotion of crackpot theories like this, we might as well give up and allow the lunatics to take over the asylum. Anyone who has seen the tomb of Timur, the Gur-e Amir, in Samarkand (as I have) can see where the architectural lineage of the Taj and other Mughal tombs begins (does Oak make these claims about all Mughal tombs, or just the Taj, because it is more famous)? Last time I looked, few 'Hindu' buildings possessed domes, iwans, minars or were decorated with Koranic inscriptions. To all you Hindutva-wallahs out there: do you have any idea how ridiculous this makes you look? Maybe I shouldn't object to this section, because it reveals the true idiocy of your ideas about creating a 'pure' Hindu culture in all their bigotry, intolerance and absurdity. Sikandarji 07:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few citations:

“Mughal architecture adopted from Timurid antecedents possesses a sense of grandeur and an extremely sophisticated understanding of how interconnecting and stacked transverse arches could be used in lieu of solid walls to create new spacial organizations. This resulted in structures with a large central room surrounded by smaller chambers and arched entranceways of various sizes. Such a plan is seen in the Timurid ‘Ishrat Khana, a dynastic mausoleum in Samarqand; it was built for women of the Timurid house and finished around 1464. Frequently imperial Mughal tombs were designed on a similar plan, specifically one consisting of nine bays. That is, a central chamber is surrounded by eight smaller rooms whose placement, size and shape depended on a geometric division of the whole. The Ak-serai tomb in Samarqand was of this type, as were some garden pavilions known from written descriptions. Other Timurid examples of this type include the khanqah of Qasim Shaikh in Kirman dated 1558-59 and the tomb of Ulug Beg Miranshah in Ghazni (d. 1506). Since the Architect of Humayun’s tomb, the first Timurid-inspired tomb in Mughal India, came from Bukhara, where he had designed a variety of building types, the Timurid inspiration for this and later Mughal tombs is not surprising” Catherine B. Asher Architecture of Mughal India New Cambridge History of India I.4 (Cambridge University Press) 1992 p16
“Some of the numerous artists who worked on the Taj Mahal are known from contemporary sources. Makramat Khan, later associated with the supervision of Shajahanabad, and ‘Abd al-Karim, a master architect in Jahangir’s reign and subsequently responsible for the Shah Burj in the Lahore Fort completed in 1631-2, supervised the project. Amanat Khan was the chief calligrapher. No architect’s name is recorded in the contemporary chronicles; however, a work by the poet Lutf Allah identifies the poet’s father, Ustad Ahmad, later Shahjahanabad’s architect, as the designer of Mumtaz Mahal’s tomb. Shah Jahan himself doubtless played a major role in the design and execution of this tomb, as he did in his other architectural enterprises. Possibly the emperor’s active role in design explains why Ustad Ahmad’s name is omitted in the official chronicle written by Lahauri”. Asher Architecture of Mughal India p212
“Mumtaz Mahal’s superbly proportioned mausoleum is seated on the centre of a high square marble plinth that elevates the tomb above the garden. The plinth is at the river’s edge, and to compensate for the effects of flooding it sits on deeply sunk wells. At each corner of the plinth is a four-storied marble minaret recalling those used in earlier Timurid funereal architecture, for example the Gur-i Amir at Samarqand, as well as at Jahangir’s tomb, whose construction was commenced by Shah Jahan only a few years before the Taj Mahal.[……]The Taj Mahal has often been likened to Humayun’s tomb, a building essentially Timurid in character and designed by an architect trained in the Timurid homeland. This form, quite different from more nearly contemporary multi-tiered Mughal tombs, was probably adopted because Shah Jahan was immensely proud of his Timurid ancestry (upon his accession, remember, he adopted the very titles used by Timur.” Asher Architecture of Mughal India p213
“…..evidence suggests it [The Taj Mahal] was designed by Ustad Isa Khan Effendi, a Persian masterbuilder from Shiraz, who assigned the detailed work to his gifted pupil Ustad Ahmed. The dome was designed by Ismail Khan. The tomb, which is higher than a modern twenty-storey building, took twenty-two years to complete with a workforce of 20,000. Craftsmen and masterbuilders came from all over Asia to join in the great work - from Baghdad, Shiraz, Delhi, Samarkand and Turkey…..” Philip Davies The Penguin Guide to the Monuments of India (London: Allen Lane) 1989 Vol. II p193

Clearly the Taj Mahal does incorporate many local influences (which you can define as ‘Hindu’ if you want to, though I would prefer to say Indian) such as the choice of material (white marble, rather than brick and glazed tiles as it would have been in Iran or Central Asia) and, most obviously, the Chhatris around the dome, whose slightly onion-shaped profile is also a development away from the Timurid ribbed half-globular form. Nevertheless, the fact that the Taj Mahal a) was built by Shah Jahan as a tomb for his wife and b) represents the apotheosis of Iranian and Timurid architecture in India, is not a matter for dispute amongst scholars. Cries that wikipedia should represent all points of view are wholly disingenuous in this instance: I am neither Muslim, nor Hindu, and have no axe to grind here. Some British commentators in the 19th century used to argue that the Taj was designed by an Italian, because they refused to accept that any ‘Asiatic’ could have designed such a masterpiece. Do we give this ‘point of view’ the time of day any more? No, because it has been rightly discredited as Imperialist nonsense. Oak’s rantings belong in a similar category, and to suggest that they warrant any sort of consideration is lazy intellectual relativism which takes no account of scholarly opinion. Oak and his Hindutva-mongering supporters aren’t interested in the truth, they’re only interested in pushing through a hate-filled political agenda, arguing that Muslims have made no significant contributions to the culture and civilisation of the subcontinent in order to justify depriving them of political rights or even expelling them from India (yes, there are lunatics who think that 130 million muslims are simply going to disappear or leave, or who even contemplate forced conversion). As such his views on the origins of the Taj Mahal are part of a much wider, sinister political discourse of exclusion, and do not deserve any place here. I propose deletion of this section. Sikandarji 09:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

hi im neither hindu or muslim. i dont ascribe to oak books. However i think there are more hindu/indigenous indian elements than are given credit for in the Taj. for example you say that the indians didnt build domes, which is completely incorrect. have you seen the buddhist Sarnath Stupa at Sanchi? this building is almost 2000 years old. The iranian and timurid buidlings have very diff dimensions to the Taj, but the sanchi one is very similar. it is also decked in floral decoration.

also the archeways are said to be imported, but this kind of archway can even be seen at Mohenj-daro! further the tomb chamber is undecorated, unlike the rest of the building, this is reminiscent of the sanctums at Hindu buildings. The 5 domes are also a hindu motif, and the 3 dome combination too. I could go on. my point is that there was obviously some serious idnian hand in the construction and design there, that is uncredited.

I feel that too much of our info today is based on shody scholoarship from the colonialists.

also this article isnt POV-free. these Shah Jahan details are not based on solid information. Can we clear this article of ALL the ideological stuff that doesnt have solid evidence (including the 'love-story' stuff?) or at least put it under a different heading. --Balvinder 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been to Sanchi, which is a stunning building: It is, however, a solid structure (there is no chamber inside), hence it is not a dome (the Sarnath Stupa is a different structure, near Benares, and, being a stupa, is also solid). It is the hollow nature of the dome which renders its construction difficult and distinctive. There are domes to be found on Indian buildings before the Mughals, although mostly on earlier Muslim structures such as the tomb of Muhammad Ghaus in Gwalior, and none on the same scale as those erected by the Mughals. I should have made it clearer that I am referring to the Timurid dome, whose distinctive element is the drum on which it is raised to give added height - and that is not seen anywhere in India before the construction of Humayun's tomb. As for the iwan, or great arch - it may be that it was used at Mohenjo-daro: but we don't know for certain because none of the buildings there survive more than two or three feet above ground level. If it was, it subsequently disappeared from Indian buildings, almost all of which use flat slabs of rock to create arches (go to Khajuraho or Konark and you will see what I mean). Early Muslim buildings such as the Quwwat ul-Islam mosque in Delhi do incorporate arches, but not the iwan, which is a Persian architectural form and pre-dates Islam. The earliest extant example of its use (and that of the squinch, for supporting a large dome) is to be found at the 3rd century palace of the Sassanid king Ardashir I in the ruins of his capital Firuzabad near Shiraz in Iran (See Robert Byron The Road to Oxiana (London) 1937 pp166-9). The iwan (meaning a high arch over an entrance, designed for catching any cooling breezes, surmounted by a pishtaq and curving down to a smaller opening below) came to India with the Mughals, and the most magnificent example can probably be seen at the Buland Darwaza at Fatehpur Sikri (whose palaces really do incorporate an abundance of earlier Indian architectural traditions). If you don't think there is a resemblance between Iranian and Timurid buildings and the Taj I suggest you have a look at the pictures on Gur-e Amir, Registan, Herat, and Esfahan. You will see that the forms are similar, the materials very different. As for the story of the Taj's construction by Shah Jahan: it is noted in the chronicle of the court historian Lahori and in many other sources, there is no mystery about it - it is not POV. That ought to be clear from the passages I've posted above from the recent and authoritative New Cambridge History, but I can dig out some more evidence if you like.

I've said my say there, but after all that I naturally agree with you that there was 'some serious Indian hand' in design and construction here. Quite apart from the fact that Shah Jahan, who commissioned it, oversaw construction and probably designed much of it, was Indian; the main page credits Chiranji Lal, a lapidary from Delhi, with the scuplture and mosaic work (i.e. the pietra dura decoration, one of the chief glories of the Taj and an art form which is not found in Iran or Central Asia: it originated in India, being used first on the tomb of Itmiad ud-Daula in Agra). A craftsman from Lahore called Qasim Khan cast the gold finial, and Ustad Ahmed, the assistant to Isa Khan Effendi from Shiraz, who probably oversaw most of the work, was also Indian. Then we can talk of the 20,000 labourers and craftsmen who worked on the Taj, many of whom probably also had creative input. The basic forms of the Taj: the dome, iwans, minars are, fundamentally, Iranian, Timurid and Islamic. The material, however, and the surface decoration, are of local inspiration, as are additions such as the chhatris, whilst the onion profile of the dome is also an Indian development. It is thus an Indian monument. It is not, and never was, a Shiva temple. Sikandarji 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

hi. thanks for taking the time to respond. you certainly sound very well informed, certainly more so than myself. i hope you can spare some more time to talk through things with me as i would appreciate the insight (im new to this subject).
you seem to be saying that the surface forms are from india but the structure isnt. i dont see this as 100% accurate. may i explain?
i have seen the timurid and persian forms in images, not had the priveleg of visiting them, although i really do hope to some day. i obviously confused the name of sanchi and sarnath, what i meant to refer to SARNATH. the dome is not the same, however the sarnath dome is about 1000 years older, so i was not referencing the tehcnology. More the proportions. I do not find these propertions in iranian/timurid forms. also the point of interest was the floral decoration on the sanath building. in books it is always claimed that the floral work was an imported influence, when it is quite clearly thoroughly indigenous. with the dome and the arches, i was responding to the claims made in nearly every text book that these qwere imported.
we must remeber that the Timurid form istelf was derivative, and one of its sources was india (Timur infamously rounded up Dehlis artisans and crfatsmen). Have you seen the sher dor madrassa at Smarkand? the inocography on it is thoroughly indian- the tiger, the fleeting deer and the personified sun (Surya). theres also a Swastika above the entrance.
the octagonal shape is also said to be imported. yet this is one of the shapes mentioned in the ancient shastras.
the portals at samarkand and in at the safavid sites are very like the Taj, however as far as i am aware (might be mistaken) these building only have a single portal, unlike the Taj which has 4. again this is an indian form- it derives from the indian architecture procoss. They draw up a grid whereby the Hindu deity of creation Brama is said to be seated in the middle (Brama is fouur faced- "chaturmukhi").
another problem is that there are we north india had alot of architecture from the times before the moghul conquests (from sources like al-biruni) but unfortunately few of these are left standing today. so we are short of indain citations.
i disagree about the Shah Jahan details being well documented. its very patchy. Most of what we have received is based on oral court traditions (same court traditions that painted Shah Jahan with a halo!) and not written down. although i do not know the persian language so cant say i have thoroughly investigated this, i can only look at what the text books say. does the book you mention go into this in further depth?
for example you say that Shah Jahan oversaw the construction? could you give me a basic idea of where this infro came from (i dont need exact citation, just a general poitner). also all this stuff about who built what, i am aware there was a manuscript could you tell me more about that?
like i said, the Taj is the only building that Shah Jahan did not mark with an inscription. this is odd in itself. why was a calligrapher allowed to sign his work but not the architect, who was obviously going to become famous? From what i have learnt, it was in vogue in Iran at the time that the iranian architetcs signt their work. The persian builder at Samarkhand even signed his work there. Shah Jahan signed his funding the Moti Masjid quite blatantly.
so when i say that an indian had a major hand in its construction, i mean the sight as a whole, not just decoration, because unlike their Persian comtemporaries the Hindus never signed tehri work. this is just my current view, and to be honest is more based on what i see at the Taj rather than what i read in texbooks.

--Balvinder 14:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am privileged to have seen the Shir-Dor madrasah in Samarkand: where I was told by a local historian that the Tigers were evidence of Chinese influence! I agree that Indian influence seems more likely, and that is a timely reminder that cultural and artistic currents can flow in more than one direction. Timur brought craftsmen from India, Iran and Turkey to work in his Imperial capital, and the efflorescence of the Timurid style represents in some ways a fusion of architectural traditions from all these places, with the Persian probably predominant. We are talking about a region (Northern India, Iran and Central Asia) with long-standing social, political, economic and religious ties which long pre-date the coming of Islam. Thus in Persia as well the idea of the four-sided building standing in a garden (or Charbagh) is of importance, as an expression of the order and beauty of paradise (Pardis or Firdaus). The Gur-e Amir does in fact have four iwans, although it is a much cruder and less wel-proportioned building than the Taj Mahal. Similarly it is not surprising to find Octagonal shapes being used in both India and Central Asia before the Mughal conquest, given the fact that Soghdiana was largely Buddhist before it became Islamic, a religion which came from India and brought many cultural influences with it. The question is, where did the Mughal builders and architects derive their immediate ideas from? And the answer is that it is more likely to have been from relatively recent buildings which had strong associations with the dynasty, such as the tomb of Timur.

You have a point with the proportions of the Sanchi dome, but where are these followed up in later Indian architecture, other than by Lutyens at Rastrapati Bhavan, of course? The Sanchi stupa was buried in jungle and abandoned from the 8th or 9th century until the middle of the 19th, and there is no way it can have had a direct impact on Mughal buildings such as Humayun's tomb (whose dome it most resembles) as nobody knew it was there! The proportions of the Taj resemble those of the contemporary Royal Mosque at Esfahan, although that doesn't have a plinth but I'm really inclined to attribute them to genius - whose I'm not sure. That element of the Taj is sui generis, with no obvious models in either Islamic or Hindu architecture amongst its predecessors.

As for Shah Jahan's involvement: firstly he and his wife are buried there, which suggests some connection. Secondly there are references to the construction (in "great detail" according to Asher - p346) both by Lahauri in the first half of the Padshah-nameh, and by Mohammad Waris, the author of the second half. The difficulty is that (unlike the Akbarnameh or the Maasir-i 'Alamgiri) this has never been translated into English, whilst the second half, which has most of the information about the Taj, is available only in manuscript form. This inaccessibility has allowed conspiracy theories to thrive. She recommends reading Banarsi Prasad Saksena The History of Shahjahan of Dilhi (Allahabad) 1932, as he made extensive use of both chronicles. I shall have a look at this myself. Stephen P. Blake, in Shahjahanabad. The Sovereign City in Mughal India gives references to Shah Jahan's architectural projects in the printed edition of Lahauri's Padshah-nameh: 'Abd al-Hamid Lahauri Badshah-nameh Ed. Maulavi Kabir al-Din Ahmad & Maulavi 'Abd al-Rahim (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal) 1866-72 2 Vols. My Persian is pretty ropey, but I will have a look at this and see what I can make out. Why didn't he sign it? Humility, perhaps (not something he often suffered from, judging from the overblown Persian inscriptions on the Jama Masjid in Old Delhi), sorrow more likely. It may remain a mystery - but do you seriously think that anyone other than the Emperor had the resources to commission a monument like the Taj? Sikandarji 15:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

i honestly wouldnt know. but honestly im skeptical about all this talk about his own personal involvement in the design, purely from the side that you know court traditions around the world were always preety liberal when it came exaggerations.

"You have a point with the proportions of the Sanchi dome, but where are these followed up in later Indian architecture,"- this is the thing see, remaining indian buildings from that era are few and far between. im more hinting at the indian architectural vocabularly in general, indians were extremely consistant when it came to culture and iconography, i mean some of the symbols at mojendharo can still been seen in modern indian culture.

i did wonder about the Shah Mosque in Ishfahan. And i wonder if the domes were originally a part of the structure or added later? Alot of buildings in Ishfahan were rennovated by later dynasties. it does seem the only obvious reference. but the (are they called murqanas?) are totally differant and the dome shape is less rounded. again this is just my critical sense talking.

i agree that it is of a mysterious genius. but then i do not think it is necessary to just assume like all the books have, and assume on so little. do any of the chronicles explicitly name the designer(s)? I must thank you for the extensive leads by the way, i'm definately going to check them out. although i wish someone would do the obvious thing and compile a translation of the actual court chronicle details. I'm reluctant to rely on the mere referencing of colocial historians, they are in large part due for the assumptions about the Taj that are viewed aas authoritative today.

again i would rather the textbooks referred to solid evidence rather than these 'fairy tales', i mean i see things such as "oh you cant look at the taj without knowing the love story" all the time and i think its pretty sad. i mean its fine for the average tourist but scholars should know better.

if any bored historian is reading this i think an objective and in depth view of all aspects of the Taj in book form is long overdue. And something that depends on primary evidence please, not references to someone who referenced someone who wrote a pamphlet 2 centuries ago!

--Balvinder 22:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You make some excellent points - and I agree, the tradition of Shah Jahan's direct involvement is less clear than I originally thought (although the date and purpose of construction and the architectural antecedents are not, in my view). The Royal Mosque at Esfahan was constructed in one go by Shah Abbas in the early 17th century, and the dome is not a later addition. I spent five weeks in Esfahan last year, and had the opportunity of examining it closely. The tiles are actually rather crude, but the proportions are quite fine, although not in the same league as the Taj. The onion shape of the taj's dome is probably an Indian innovation (it is one of the main differences between the Taj and Humayun's tomb). I am not convinced that North India was once dotted with buildings derived from the Sanchi Stupa: we do have a large group of surviving temples at Khajuraho, and they do not resemble it in the slightest. We also have the 15th century Man Singh palace at Gwalior, which we know had a profound impact on Mughal palace architecture: the Jahangir Mahal in the Agra Fort is almost a direct copy, at least in its interior. However, apart from the Chhatris which crown its towers there is nothing here which appears likely to have had an influence on the Taj. I really think we have to prefer obvious and actual Iranian and Timurid models which would have been known to architects of the day to speculation about buildings which might, had they existed, have resembled a Stupa which had disappeared from public knowledge seven hundred years before the Taj was built. We do know the name of the designer of the dome, and, at least, of the assistant architect, Ustad Ahmed, whose influence may have been considerable and who was almost certainly a native of India.Sikandarji 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

hi i did not mean to imply that the Sanchi site was exemplary or representative, i was saying that it shows that the idea of a dome, porportians, decoration were not suddenly imported one day in 1600. it has been documented that the north Indians did have an impressive building heirtage (the documenters didnt reach the south). as you said earlier, influence is not a one-way street. and what we do have left is the ancient shastras, which the Hindus wouldnt have altered, certainly not according to foreign influences, as they are solid conservationists in that way.
even the most basic elements of the Taj are surprising. for example, the Taj is built on a sight that slopes north-east, coincidental to the recommendations of the ancient shashtras. Obviously there is some beneficial reason to this- the way the sunlight will fall on the building for example. this shows that the Indian mind was there right from the start.

also the site layout, in that the tomb is at the end of, not the middle, of the bagh. Again an indian consideration. (i dont buy that the river and the garden on the other side were part of the original Taj site- mainly because the iste on the other side has ruins that dont fit the scheme and also because the river would be in use by merchants etc so i doubt royalty would want commoners sailing through their gardens!)

i also have reservations about the finial. The Crescent moon was a symbol of the Ottomens, not the moghuls (did the moughuls ever use this symbol?) and was depicted as upright, not on its flank. The wiki article says its put this way to resemble a indian trident, which i dont agree with either. it clear to me that it is the ancient indian symbol of akaash (space)- again an ancient symbol of one of the five elements that the Hindus associated with the building process.
looking at the wiki article it says something peculiar: "'Puru' from Benarus, Persia (Iran), has been mentioned as the supervising architect in Persian language texts". Benarus?!? is that a persian city too? And doesnt the name Puru sound typically indian? I couldnt find out what this source is though.

--Balvinder 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How long will this section, which is in my opinion an embarassment to the article, stay the way it is? Mr. Oak has already been laughed out of court in his own country and it really is a slap in the face of everything the Taj Mahal stands for. Wikipedia is not an arena to throw around questions that have already been answered. The section misleads a reader into thinking the case for a "Hindu temple" is stronger than it actually is, simply because it somehow found itself a place in a article that is constantly checked from all sides. --72.141.227.130 13:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bernier

I've not had a chance to get to the Library yet to look at the Persian stuff, but Bernier, who travelled in the Mughal Empire between 1656 and 1668, writes that:

"I shall finish this letter with a description of the two wonderful mausoleums which constitute the chief superiority of Agra over Delhi. One was erected by Jehan-guyre [sic] in honour of his father Ekbar; and Chah-Jehan raised the other to the memory of his wife Tage Mehale [properly Mumtaz Mahal], that extraordinary and celebrated beauty, of whom her husband was so enamoured it is said that he was constant to her during live, and at her death was so affected as nearly to follow her to the grave." François Bernier Travels in the Moghul Empire A.D. 1656-1668 (Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co.) 1891 p293

Now this is a contemporary source, whose reliability on many other points can be vouched for. Certainly the 'love-story' of the Taj's creation was already current before Shah Jahan's death in 1666. No doubt his desire to leave a monument that he would be remembered by played a part. But the association of the Taj with Shah Jahan, and his grief over the death of Mumtaz Mahal, is indisputable. Sikandarji 14:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

you should put this in the article itself, along with a description about who Bernier was. cant you get a date for that letter itself though? --Balvinder 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguating the term romance

I am not sure what to do with the term romance in the second paragraph in the article. I am working the disambiguation list for the term romance but I cannot find a definition link that I believe captures the intended meaning in the article. Can someone help me with what is meant in the use of the word romance in this article? Thanks.

Crackerbelly

If it has to be wikified, it should link to Romantic love. Paul B 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Entrance fort

I have added a newer image of the entrance fort, which gives a 3-dimensional view of the fort. Hope everyone likes it.

Thanks

Srikeit(talk ¦ ?) 04:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Complex of elements

The article says:

While the white domed marble mausoleum is the most familiar part of the monument, the Taj Mahal is actually a complex of elements.

But what exactly is a "complex of elements"? -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK11:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It means that the Taj Mahal as a whole is not simply the central building, but also includes a series of other architectural features extending around the central domed building. Paul B 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I understood the intend of the sentence, of course. But AFAIK, the phrase is not popularly used and would amount to confusion (But then I could be wrong, as I am not a native speaker). It looks better now. Thanks! -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK14:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)