I have been reading this article. And it was pretty controversial in claiming that the Taj Mahal is actually a Hindu temple and not an islamic tomb.

Tajmahal is not a Islamic mausoleum but an ancient Shiva Temple known as Tejo Mahalaya which the 5th generation Moghul emperor Shahjahan commandeered from the then Maharaja of Jaipur.

I made some google search but found articles mostly related to studies of guy named -- P. N. Oak? Are there any more studies or books claiming the same thing?

How true are the claims of this guy?

  • The article contains 110 claims. This is too wide for a single question. Please pick a single main claim or a number of related claims, quote them and ask about them. If you want to ask about all the different claims, do so in several different question, each dedicated to a main topic.
    – SIMEL
    Commented Feb 25, 2014 at 11:12
  • @IlyaMelamed Actually my question is about Taj mahal being Tej-o-mahal as claimed by P. N. Oak? This guy gives 110 evidences, I just want to know if there are any counter points to his claims. Mostly 110 points of the article point out to the tomb being a temple.
    – user983983
    Commented Feb 25, 2014 at 11:16
  • Then please, bring the specific claim you are skeptical of to the body of the question and the title.
    – SIMEL
    Commented Feb 25, 2014 at 11:20
  • @IlyaMelamed : I hope that does it.. :)
    – user983983
    Commented Feb 25, 2014 at 11:26
  • @IlyaMelamed: Thanks! New to the site. Not sure of the how particular the edits are needed. :)
    – user983983
    Commented Feb 25, 2014 at 11:32

1 Answer 1


How true are the claims of this guy?

P.N. Oak is a controversial writer also known for claiming that the Vatican was once a Hindu temple.

Now onto the Taj Mahal, this claim is listed under Myths of the Taj Mahal

P.N.Oak's wikipedia states

In 2000 India's Supreme Court dismissed Oak's petition to declare that a Hindu king had built the Taj Mahal and reprimanded him for bringing the action, saying he had a "bee in his bonnet" about the Taj.

In fact you should read all of this entry. Other than Oak's book itself, there do not seem to be other claims of the same.

So this seems to be a myth.

There are multiple theories about the name - and the offical website claims it actually stands for Crown Palace which is a literal translation of the words "Taj" and "Mahal"

There's more here

One of the legends is that the name Taj Mahal is derived from the Persian language, the language spoken in Mughal court. In Persian, the word Taj means Crown and the word Mahal means place or area. In combination, the word Taj Mahal more or less means, "Crown Place" or "Place of the Crown".

  • His most of the theories seem to be far fetched.. But I'm still a little skeptical about photographical evidences he provided. Any insights?
    – user983983
    Commented Feb 25, 2014 at 12:18
  • @user983983: I do have some comments on the photographs, but those are just my opinions which are not useful on skeptics. The Om in the flowers for example - many of the craftsmen were Hindus - may be they just sneaked those in. also there seems to be claims that an earlier structure existed at the site, but it was not the current Taj Mahal building.
    – JoseK
    Commented Feb 25, 2014 at 12:38
  • Its this particular image thats creeping me out. This is a "Kalash" for sure.
    – user983983
    Commented Feb 25, 2014 at 12:48
  • yup that looks like a Kalash alright. Read stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm to get more creeped out then ;)
    – JoseK
    Commented Feb 26, 2014 at 7:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .