Taj Mahal is built on a Shiv Temple, claims Dwarka Peeth Shankracharya

[nana41]

Neither.
The Army in India is only an Army. It does not run businesses, run Government or run Courts.
In India; there is no confusion between the role of the Maalik i.e. the People and the role of the Chowkidar i.e. the Army.

Right! Then who is going to demolish all those mosques in India,which were built on thousands of mandirs?.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Right! Then who is going to demolish all those mosques in India,which were built on thousands of mandirs?.

That is hardly the Army's job.

 

[nana41]

That is hardly the Army's job.

Who else then?.

 

[Hindustani78]

Updated: May 14, 2015 00:35 IST
Keep Taj free of controversy: guides - The Hindu
Mohammad Ali

— FILE PHOTO: RAJEEV BHATT
Tourists thronging Taj Mahal on the bank of river Yamuna, at Agra.
TOPICS
religion and belief
Lawyers had moved the court with the plea that Hindus should be allowed to offer worship at the Taj Mahal which they said was a Shiva temple once.
The legal case on the plea to declare the Taj Mahal a Shiva temple took an interesting turn on Wednesday with several tourist bodies in Agra asking the district court not to allow the monument to become a “Babri Masjid.”

Lawyer Harishankar Jain, and five others, had moved the court with the plea that Hindus should be allowed to offer worship at the Taj Mahal which they said was a Shiva temple once. Their petition wanted the court to direct the authorities to restrain any religious activity by Muslims and remove all graves from the premises.

Mr. Jain, who argued that the temple used to be called Tejo Mahalaya, made Lord Agreshwar Mahadev the main plaintiff to claim ownership of the Taj and declared himself the “next friend” of the deity.

‘A national pride’

At the hearing, the Approved Guide Association sought to intervene. “The Taj Mahal is a major tourist attraction and a symbol of national pride not only for Agra but also for the entire country. The Mughal monument should not be made controversial. The court should ensure that it is not turned into another Babri Masjid,” Vireshwar Nath Tripathi, an office-bearer of the association, said.

“Making the Taj Mahal controversial would affect not only the source of attraction for the world but also tourism in the country,” he said.

The court had earlier asked the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, the Home Ministry and the Archaeological Survey of India to file their stand. The next hearing is scheduled for July 15.

Mr. Jain, who claims to be an RSS sympathiser, had told The Hindu on the phone that there was no historical basis for the Taj Mahal to remain a “Muslim property.” “To use the property for any purpose other than ‘puja’ is illegal and unlawful as it belongs to Lord Agreshwar Maha-dev Naagnatheshwar.”

“The property belongs to the deity, and nobody has the right to transfer or own it, except the deity,” says the suit.

Mr. Jain alleged that Tejo Mahalaya was built by Raja Paramardi Dev in 1212 AD, and later inherited by Hindu kings Raja Maan Singh and Raja Jai Singh. “The Tejo Mahalaya was annexed by Shah Jahan in 1632 and after the death of his wife Mumtaz Mahal, it was turned into a memorial for her. Later, portions of the temple complex and its vicinity were changed to bring a semblance of Islamic architecture,” he claimed.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

So After it becomes Hindu temple, , Will you allow Muslims in it? Tourist can come there or not? What Hinduism says, Muslim prayers are allowed there or not?

 

[Hindustani78]

So After it becomes Hindu temple, , Will you allow Muslims in it? Tourist can come there or not? What Hinduism says, Muslim prayers are allowed there or not?

I think this is mainly because some Muslim groups wants to declare Taj Mahal as wakf property. Taj Mahal is National monument.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

I think this is mainly because some Muslim groups wants to declare Taj Mahal as wakf property.

Taj Mahal is one of the best place for tourist ...I agree that people should not play religious card on it....

 

[hadoken]

Are there other rampantly developing regions in the world that let Idiots voice their opinions? If India really prides itself as being a secular and multicultural society (like it says it does), why would they let retards run amok in front of the media?

I get that it does eventually come down to practising free speech but these Hindutwa bastards have enough power to strike a cord with large group of people. Religion and politics do not match...at least not in a country like India.

 

[graphican]

A similar idiot had dreamed that Ram was born on the place of Babri Masjid and entire Hindustwa is gone bananas on that. Here goes another idiot who have discovered Shiv Temple under Taj Mahal and soon another moron will discover another temple under Jamia Masjid Dehli. Is there any temple under India Gate as well?

Its not ironic that these guys throw brain-farts and media listens to them but ironic that there are followers of these morons who believe what they babble.

 

[Bang Galore]

A similar idiot had dreamed that Ram was born on the place of Babri Masjid and entire Hindustwa is gone bananas on that. Here goes another idiot who have discovered Shiv Temple under Taj Mahal and soon another moron will discover another temple under Jamia Masjid Dehli. Is there any temple under India Gate as well?

Its not ironic that these guys throw brain-farts and media listens to them but ironic that there are followers of these morons who believe what they babble.

Would be much better if you don't set out to be religiously offensive. Debate by all means whether there was a temple at the spot where Babri Majid was built, no real point in referring to "idiots" dreaming & whether Rama was born there. That is a matter of faith and people will turn around and reply with similar reactions about your religion & beliefs.

Are there other rampantly developing regions in the world that let Idiots voice their opinions? If India really prides itself as being a secular and multicultural society (like it says it does), why would they let retards run amok in front of the media?

I get that it does eventually come down to practising free speech but these Hindutwa bastards have enough power to strike a cord with large group of people. Religion and politics do not match...at least not in a country like India.

How does it matter? The law is still the law and no one cares for these kinds of loony claims.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

Would be much better if you don't set out to be religiously offensive. Debate by all means whether there was a temple at the spot where Babri Majid was built, no real point in referring to "idiots" dreaming & whether Rama was born there. That is a matter of faith and people will turn around and reply with similar reactions about your religion & beliefs.

They can talk all cr*p about others all day but when somebody responds in their own language, they start huffing and puffing!

Bunch of hypocrites!

 

[graphican]

Would be much better if you don't set out to be religiously offensive. Debate by all means whether there was a temple at the spot where Babri Majid was built, no real point in referring to "idiots" dreaming & whether Rama was born there. That is a matter of faith and people will turn around and reply with similar reactions about your religion & beliefs.


How does it matter? The law is still the law and no one cares for these kinds of loony claims.

No disrespect for any religion - here I am criticizing a person who without reasoning gives a statement and is being believed. How would he know that Rama was born here? If it was mentioned in a holy book, like Geeta, that must have been respected - but how would he make something religious which 30 before wasn't and now it is previous as anything? Would you defend his assumptions because he is a religious figure?

 

[Shamain]

Achaaawwwwwwwww.

Phir!

 

[Bang Galore]

No disrespect for any religion - here I am criticizing a person who without reasoning gives a statement and is being believed. How would he know that Rama was born here? If it was mentioned in a holy book, like Geeta, that must have been respected - but how would he make something religious which 30 before wasn't and now it is previous as anything? Would you defend his assumptions because he is a religious figure?

Going there is pointless. The question was whether a temple existed there, that is a case that has now dragged since before independence. Whether Rama was born there or whether a hair is from the beard of the prophet Mohammed or a tooth from the Buddha is best left to believers.

 

[Rusty]

holy molly
Is India getting so insane that even the extreme right wing internet Hindus that hang out on PDF are calling this crazy?

This is bad news for India, their right wing is going to fall off a cliff if they keep moving this far right.

How long until all mosques and churches are banned, then destroyed?