CategoriesView All (70) Amusement Parks (2,063) Ancient (4,082) Bridges (6,608) Farms (1,311) Houses (18,941) Lighthouses (3,520) Medieval (4,277) Modern (4,438) Monuments (2,813) Religious (8,372) Skyscrapers (3,928) Other (15,943)
Architecture Walls: 49,184
All Wallpapers: 1,696,349
Tag Count: 9,948,936
5,170 Users Online
55 members, 5,115 guestsabydorisles
Most users ever online was 150,759 on 9/11/14.
Comments shown in chronological (descending) order.
|Posted by shivbhakt on 03/27/13 at 03:47 PM|
Why don't any one start to fight FOR Tejo Mahalaya
|Posted by Iti on 02/10/13 at 05:45 AM|
No need to waste time in false assertions like Ahava. Please refer to the websites where you will find elaborate information by Stephen Knapp and Mr. P.N. Oak. The truth is not revealed due to vote bank politics of Congress party to woe the Muslim voters, who are mere 13% of Indian population and of course there is a strong backing of Gandhi family.
|Posted by Iti on 02/09/13 at 11:22 AM|
Shahjahan had destroyed 76 temples in Varanasi alone. These muslim invaders and plunderers and above all fanatics not only destroyed Hindu temples but have built on it mosque across India. So certainly it is not surprising to know that Taj Mahal is actually seated on a Shiva temple.
|Posted by shakt86 on 10/23/12 at 08:08 PM|
can we not have public petition in high court or supreme court and let international and well known scholars to study the building again. we mus find the truth, this is slap on the face of democracy
|Posted by Nikhil003 on 07/12/12 at 02:36 AM|
Wowww.... so that is a gr8888 Temple.. of Lord Shiva, not " Makabara " of Mumtazzz.
|Posted by anujsingh3787 on 07/07/12 at 03:43 AM|
all the facts and evidence provided by the Oak, is right upto the mark which proves that Taj Mahal was/is/will a Temple of Shiva and no doubt that it is Hindu people's mythological [email protected]
|Posted by Tejaji on 08/06/11 at 03:45 PM|
Aheva, You may disagree. It doesn't matter.
What was Supreme Court's basis for overruling P.N. Oak's claim?? What was the explanation that the Supreme Court gave? Let's scrutinize that! Do you have it, if at all it was there??
Your claim that Hinduism predates Islam only by a mere about 2,000 years shows that you don't even have an idea what you are talking about. You have no idea about what Hinduism consists of and what it is to begin with!!!
If you are familiar with the name Vedas, then do you know how old are the Vedas??
Do you know about eh yuga cycles? Hinduism is older than the yugas. Kaliyuga started about little over 4,000 years back. And here you are claiming that Hinduism is ONLY about 2,000 years older than islam?
The "Paradise" garden version concoction about the Tejo Mahalya is laughable. So this also shows that you have no idea about Islam as well. Because if you had any, then you would think - only a very devout islamist would make such a "holy" idea into reality. And if he is THAT devoted to islam, there is absolutely no question of his putting so many Hindu symbols all over the Taj!!! This is a very important factor. A replica of Islamic paradise made by an Islamic emperor, putting Hindu symbols on it? For what?? 11 - which is a sacred Hindu figure - is used on teh Gates of the Taj. Why?
Is the symbol and meaning of OM accepted in Islam? Then do you think any Moghul emperor would be so corrupt to put it all over a grand mausoleum??
What about the forensic test by the American Institute of Forensic sciences? You cannot fool everyone and life in that light all your life. You can, but only to remain in dark. Some people may want to life in darkness. Their choice.
|Posted by danzl on 11/11/10 at 12:27 PM|
I cannot agree here you see. We all know that Shahjahan was a Mughal Emperor who had 5000 or more women in his harem. So I am starting to think why or how could he fall in love with this one particular girl. lol. its funny. Ain't it?
|Posted by Linipk on 10/21/10 at 01:48 PM|
If "Taj Mahal" was a mausoleum what is the use for well and other rooms which are not shown to the public? There is enough evidence to prove that this was a Hindu Temple or palace and Mogul rulers desecrated it.
The ending "Mahal"is never muslim because in none of the muslim countries around the world from Afghanistan to Algeria is there a building known as "Mahal". The unusual explanation of the term Tajmahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal, who is buried in it, is illogical in at least two respects viz., firstly her name was never Mumtaj Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani and secondly one cannot omit the first three letters "Mum" from a woman's name to derive the remainder as the name of the building. Since the lady's name was Mumtaz (ending with 'Z') the name of the building derived from her should have been Taz Mahal, if at all, and not Taj (spelled with a 'J').
|Posted by konarksuntemple on 12/10/09 at 01:22 AM|
So Ahava, what are you saying. is it a queen's tomb or a mosque or both? does islam allow that??
and ofcourse naveen u had left out the part about the 'kalash" on top of the minarets... that islamic, too?? Ahava...
|Posted by Ahava on 08/09/09 at 08:26 PM|
Beautiful wallpaper though. nice upload.
|Posted by Ahava on 08/09/09 at 08:26 PM|
interesting information but i am inclined to disagree with you. the beautiful taj mahal! built by the Persian Muslim Mughal Emperor, Shah Jahan for his dead wife, Mumtaz Mahal. (Mumtaz Mahal means "beloved ornament of the palace" in Persian. Her real name was Arjumand Banu Begum). A Little known legend is that Mumtaz is not actually buried in the mausoleum at all but the Shah became so occupied with building his masterpiece that the small wooden shrine which held her body was thrown out on the trash pile & burnt!
The building does have obvious Hindu influences, for the obvious reasons being that Hindism predates Islam by about over 2,000 years (as does Judaism & Christianity by about 700 years, as much as Muslims would like to think otherwise). And also that it was built in India by an Indian ruler. But the ruler was Muslim and at the time was also at war with the Hindus in the southern part of the continent. The whole building AND grounds were meant to be a lifesize depiction of Islamic "Paradise", or Heaven. "Paradise" is a Farsi word meaning, "walled garden". The four minarets were not Hindu in origin, but are meant to be the four corners of the earth from which Muslims believe that the word of Allah will be heard. Minarets were built to be a high vantage point from which the muezzin can call the faithful to prayer, since the hadith (the book of recorded sayings and life of the prophet Mohammed) states that the community of Medina in Saudi Arabia, where islam was created, gave the call to prayer from the rooftop of Mohammed, which also doubled as a place of prayer. About 80 years after the prophet's death the first minarets were added to the the building of mosques. Thought the first mosques were built without minarets.
In 2002 the Indian Supreme Court overruled Purushottam Nagesh Oak's (P.N. Oak) claim that the building was originally a Hindu temple built before the Persian Islamic invasion of Northern India. In most academic circles P.N. Oak is regarded as a crackpot. He also claims that Christianity and Islam are derived from Hinduism, which is so far from historical truth as to be laughable! Sorry Naveen.