Hinduism Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for followers of the Hindu religion and those interested in learning more about Hinduism. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I have seen many blogs which claims that Taj Mahal was a Shiva temple in the past. Links for few those blogs are
1. The Tajmahal is Tejomahalay, A Hindu Temple
Is there any scripture/text or evidence available in our history that can prove this claim correct or anything related to this that can contradict these claims?
As far as I know the this Taj Mahal as Shiva temple theory was propagated by a self taught, self proclaimed historian P N Oak. I am not discarding his theory because he did not have proper training but his evidence and logic does seem to be pretty shaky.
I will not go into specific details on this answer but Indologist Dr. Koenraad Elst has deconstructed all his arguments here.
Salient points for the record:
At any rate, even if standing on a Hindu site, the Taj Mahal is absolutely no Hindu building. It entirely follows the conventions of Indo-Saracenic architecture, with domes and arches borrowed by the first Muslims in West-Asia from the Byzantines, with no Hindu connection in sight anywhere. As a grave, too, it is wildly contrary to Hindu sensibilities. Only accomplished (jivanmukta) sages are buried, other human bodies are cremated or, in related (Parsi, Tibetan) traditions, left to disintegrate under the impact of animals and the elements. The idea of keeping decomposing human bodies close to human centres of habitation in graveyards is repulsive to the Hindu mind. It is a sign of Hindus’ estrangements from their roots that they insist on claiming this un-Hindu site, probably because (Brahmachari writes as much) it is applauded world-wide. Well, proud Hindus don’t care for the poor taste of Western tourists and may point out that the Taj Mahal is bland and vulgar when compared with Ajanta and Ellora, the Meenakshi temple or the Elephanta caves.
In defence of his thesis, Brahmachari challenges the sceptics to explain one particular inscription dedicating an unspecified marble temple in the area to Vishnu. It is not clear from the inscription as given by him that one of the temples stood at the very site of the Taj Mahal. According to his own data, at any rate, the inscription is from ca. 1150 AD. That is well before the destruction of just about every temple in North India by Ghori and Aibak in 1192-94 and by their successors in the Delhi Sultanate. Especially in Agra, lying on the main route of Muslim advance and a sometime Muslim capital, no sizable temple could have been left standing in that orgy of iconoclasm. So there is some 500 years between the destruction of the said marble temples and the appearance of the Taj Mahal.
Yes,Taj Mahal was really a Shiva temple in the past because there was a temple of Lord Shiva in Agra and the Mughal Empire Shah Jahan was a Muslim and everyone knows that Muslims hate Hindus. Shah Jahan told the people who had made the Taj Mahal to break the Shiva temple and make his Taj Mahal in the place of the Shiva temple and the people of Shah Jahan had broken this Shiva temple and after that they had made Taj Mahal. That's why Empire Babur's family had came to an end after Shah Jahan's son Empire Aurangzeb. I think this was the punishment of Lord Shiva for the Empire Shah Jahan because of his misdeeds.
Tajmahal
A place where Mumtaj is buried as we know. But actually it is not the case, because Mumtaj is not buried Agra, its somewhere else(Burhanpur, Maharashtra). According to many Muslim scholars, and according to Islam, a body cannot be reburied in different places, it is "haram" to do so.Still some muslim scholar's argue on this.
About Tajmahal ,Shahjhan only re-sized it According to Peter Mundy about Tajmahal
