A. The word ‘ Mahal’ is not a Muslim word and in none of the Muslim countries around the world, there is any building known as Mahal. B. . A wooden piece from the riverside eastern doorway of the Taj subjected to the carbon-14 test by an American laboratory has revealed it to be 300 years older than Sahajahan. C. . The Taj Mahal has trident pinnacle over the dome. The central shaft of the trident depicts a Kalash holding two bent mango leaves and a coconut. D. . The embossed patterns on the marble exterior of the cenotaph chamber wall are foliage of the conch shell design and the Hindu letter ‘OM’. E. . The Taj Mahal entrance faces South. Had the Taj been an Islamic building it should have faced West. : The Historical Evidences collected in the research conducted by petitioner No.2 are as under:- 1. According to the British historian Keene, Agra fort has been in existence from the pre-Christian era. Ancient Hindu kings like Ashok (3rd Century B.C.) and Kanishka (1st Century B.C.) had lived in that fort. 2. That same fort is again referred to by the Persian poet-historian Salman,in the 11th century A.D.. Early in that century when the Hindu king Jaipal ruled over Agra. The fort suffered its first Muslim raid under the invader Mahmud of Ghazni. 3. Thereafter some chauvinistic Islamic accounts vaguely claim that the Muslim sultan Sikandar Lodi demolished the Hindu fort. That claim has been found to be baseless. 4. A few years later another vague claim is made by some other mediaeval Muslim faltterers that sultan Salim Shah Sur either destroyed the Hindu fort or Sikandar Lodi’s fort and built his own fort at exactly the same place or some other place.Even the claim has been found to be fraudulent because no trace is found of the fort that Salim Shah Sur is said to have built. Muslim history is replete with such fraudulent claims, according to the late British historian Sir H.M.Elliot. 5. The claim that Akbar built the fort is also found to be baseless because while he is said to have demolished the fort in 1565 A.D., a murderer Adham Khan being thrown from the terrace of a palace-apartment inside the fort in 1566 A.D. is emphatic proof that the claim made on behalf of Akbar is as fraudulent as those made on behalf of two other Muslim sultans earlier. In fact it is also pointed out that not a single building of Akbar’s time exists in the fort. 6. Akbar’s son Jahangir is said to have perhaps built a palace inside the fort here or there demolishing his own father’s palace but even that conjecture is found to be based on mere fancy or on some idle engravings. 7. Jahangir’s son Shahjahan is said to have demolished 500 buildings inside the fort and erected 500 others. On the very face of it this claim is absurd. No one will merely for fun of it destroy 500 palatial mansions built by one’s father or grandfather. Such demolition itself will occupy a lifetime. Moreover it must also be remembered that Shahjahan is credited with building the fabulous Taj Mahal in Agra, a whole new township of Delhi, also the Red fort in Delhi, The Jama Masjid in Delhi and perhaps many other buildings. Not only are there no court records of any building activity but even inscriptions do not substantiate any building claim. We wish to alert visitors not to be misled by the appearance of Arabic or Persian lettering on mediaeval buildings. All such lettering is mostly of Koranic extracts or the name of Allah. Those inscriptions are seldom temporal. In a few instances where there are temporal inscriptions they usually bear the name of the engraver or of the person buried and some irrelevant matter. For instance nowhere on the Taj Mahal has it been mentioned that the Taj Mahal was built by Shahjahan.We therefore wonder how the whole world had been duped for 300 long years into believing that the Taj Mahal was built by Shahjahan. Similar is the case with Red fort in Agra. No where is it said that Akbar or his son Jahangir or the latter’s son Shahjahan built anything there. 8. In this connection we also want to alert visitors to mediaeval buildings and students and scholars of history not to believe in translations of Arabic and Persian inscriptions presented readymade to them through earlier books. We have found in very many instances that they have been distorted in translation. For instance on the Taj Mahal the inscriber has carved his name as Amanat Khan Shirazi (an insignificant slave of the emperor Shahjahan). Anglo-Muslim accounts have boosted this inscriber of letters as one of the great wonder architects of the world. Similarly on Fatehpur Sikri where a building is said to have been graced (by his presence) by Salim Chisti it is merrily ascribed to him. 9. We therefore advise all students of history never to take for granted the translation of Muslim inscriptions provided heretofore but get them translated de novo whenever one has to make use of them. The whole question of the translation and interpretation of Muslim inscriptions not only in India but throughout the world must be reopened and gone through thoroughly, for much wishful thinking has gone into presenting them in translations to non-Muslims. In fact it would be very educative to have an encyclopaedia for all Muslim inscriptions and the misleading translations and interpretations they have been subjected to heretofore. As an instance of a great snare in the study of mediaeval history such exposure will be of immense educative value in warning future researchers and students of history. 10. .That once the hurdle of a false Muslim claim made on Akbar’s behalf is got over, we find that the fort that we see today in Agra is the same which was owned by ancient Hindu kings like Ashok and Kanishka .After Akbar there is no serious claim made on behalf of any Muslim ruler as the author of the fort. That means that the fort that we see in Agra city today is the ancient Hindu ochre fort a colour so dear to Hindus. In fact ochre is the colour of Hindu flag- a colour for which and under which they have fought for their national and cultural existence and identity –a colour which has inspired them to great deeds of valour, sacrifice, bravery, chivalry, gallantry and glory. Can that ochre colour be ever owned by Muslims? It goes against all history and tradition. 11. Despite several centuries of Muslim occupation and canards of Muslim authorship all the fort’s Hindu associations are intact. This is something remarkable. 12. The two thousand year history of the fort that Keene traces turns out to be authentic. The slight hitch and doubt that he encounters gets explained away by his own very intelligent footnote that the incident of a murderer having been flung from the terrace of the palace inside the fort could not be possible if the fort had been destroyed a year earlier. 13. The lack of any coherence in the dates of starting the forts construction and its completion is proof of the fact that the world has been buffed about the Muslim origin of the fort. 14. Muslim accounts are unable to explain the name of any apartment, as to who built it, when was it built, what for it was built, what its cost was and why it has an Hindu aura about it ? This is because the fort did not originally belong to the invaders from Arabia ,Iran ,Turkey, Afghanistan, Khazasstan and Uzbekstan. They were mere intruders , conquerors, usurpers. 15. All this discussion should convince the reader that the Red Fort in Agra is of hoary Hindu antiquity and is at least 2200 years old.
Posted on: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 04:50:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015