Taj Mahal - Mumtaz's tomb or Ancient Hindu temple?

The below mentioned article is mind blowing. Everyone if of the mindset that Shah Jahan has build the Taj Mahal and it is a master piece of Mughalaya culture. But when somebody says no, this is an ancient Shiva temple, it is difficult to accept the same.

Irrespective of whether this is a temple or not , as an individual i view taj mahal as an architectural symbol which has got India a place in the wonders of the world.

Request to share your views:

Article:

No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N. Oak, who believes the
whole world has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal: The True Story, Oak says
the Taj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of
Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya ) . In the course of his research O
ak discovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from
then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. In his own court ch ronicle, 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 began with the name of Taj Mahal. He says
the term " Mahal " has never been used for a building in any Muslim countries
from Afghanisthan to Algeria. "The unusual explanation that the term Taj
Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogical in atleast 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 Lord Shiva's Palace . Oak
also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale cre ated
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 dedicated to Shiva, worshipped by
Rajputs of Agra city. For example, Prof. 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 cit y 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 well before Shah Jahan's time..
Prof. 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 Lord Shiva and other objects
commonly used for worship rituals in Hindu temples Fearing political
backlash, Indira Gandhi's government t ried to have Prof. Oak's book
withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the
first edition dire consequences . There is only one way to discredit or
validate Oa p k's research. The current government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Ma hal under
U.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate.

I had all along suspected that no husband could have loved his wife (of so many years) to such an extent and built a marble tomb for her!Ah! Now Oak has explained it and restored my faith in" mankind".Men will be men after all!!
(No prizes for guessing my gender or my marital status.)
Knowing our nation's thirst for religious flavour in blood,I fear that a few over-zealous Hindus might grab this monument of love(?) and build yet another Shiva temple there.
Well... my arguement is that there are quite a few temples for us to pray...There is but only one symbol of husband's love in the whole world. It is a "WONDER", I agree-- and allow us to wonder with the benifit of doudt to Mumtaz, rather than to be left disillussioned once and for ever!

Between you and me : why don't we put a cloak over this Oak's theory?
(written by a disillussioned wife)

Didnt want to poach my friend's word as my own , but still here it goes ..

Every statement can be proved wrong......(irony is even this statement can be done so)

I read this earlier and even saw photos of this earlier but somehow (even though it was so convincing) I could not believe it .Simply for the reason , if a temple was demolished or made into someone's tomb how come nobody noted it.It should have been noted somewhere by the Hindu kings.

As there are none , It might take more effort to actually convince me about this


Prabhu ....