Taj Mahal was, in fact, a Shiva temple and was built by Raja Jai Singh

Right. And the Empire State Building was a masjid.

Strangely, the fundies don't seem to mind male Muslim stars (Shah Rukh, Salman, Aamir, Saif Ali) kissing non-Muslim actresses.

How dare it be insinuated that the Tejo Mahal is not a Shiva temple! Come here, you impudent little sepia rascals, I will throw my chapal at you!

:silently admires the guy who calls everything Indian, from Goodness Gracious Me., after Kumars at No. 42:

Hey, Manish,

If it takes circumcision to get our Hindu girls to jiggle their.. torsos.. on widescreen, then that's the sacrifice we must make.

Jai Ram!

These posts are getting boring!!!

If you knew Vinay Katiyar, you would know that he says lot of ludicrous things.

If i had to guess why he said this and why now, it is because the muslim waqf board wants to take over this monument because they assert it is a graveyard which only a muslim body should maintain. In reality they want to dip their hand in the tourist revenue bundle!!!!
Link below. http://ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?id=70079

As also noted by Anna in a previous post

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001186.html

Anon, Why the waqf are we hashing this Taj thing again? ;))

Basking Shark - Exactly!!!! That is why i noted that this is getting waqfin' boring.

May be it's time to invade hindoo and moslem countries and convert them into christianity, a highly tolerant religion.

no, this religion is even BETTER. :D

Well, the Taj Mahal controversy is not new - been there since late 60's! Lot of books have already been written and archeological evidences are present to back this theory of "Tejo Mai Mahal". Check out the following links:

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/index.htm
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm .

also see other photos... Follow the link at bottom of the page where it says "click here".

One cannot refute just by lamenting that the people who propose this theory are fundamentalists. That would be a communist, impatient statement.

I have not come across claims that refute findings in the above link.

There certainly is a possibility of existence of a temple but more evidence would be required to prove it (since the primary research has been done by an Indian... being sarcastic).

Lot of books have already been written and archeological evidences are present to back this theory of "Tejo Mai Mahal".

There's also a theory, with attempts at evidence to back it up, that humans had aquatic ancestors. It's called aquatic ape theory. It's probably not true. And neither is your's.

It's probably not true. And neither is your's.

While I admire your ability to compare apples and oranges, I pity your inability to distinguish them. You sound like a fundamentalist here... Rather than finding weaknesses, loop-holes and assumptions you resorted to lame comparison. Anyway, its your choice to maintain your mindset.

Nobody who goes by hammer_sickle should need to be educated about bad theories.

While we are at it, how about some christian fundamentalism -

US Evangelism Serious Threat to Indian Society

http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/000335.html

"Strangely, the fundies don't seem to mind male Muslim stars (Shah Rukh, Salman, Aamir, Saif Ali) kissing non-Muslim actresses."

it is kosher in islamic law for muslim males to marry christian & jewish females. though it is technically not kosher for muslim males to marry 'pagan' females, it is not nearly as frowned upon as for the verbotten non-muslim male + female pairing. the reason is that in islamic law religion is determined by the father, so if a father is non-muslim, so are the children. muslim males who outmarry are expected to raise their children muslim.

p.s. megawati sukarnoputri, the current president of indonesia, has a hindu (balinese) grandmother.

Razib,
You stated " the reason is that in islamic law religion is determined by the father "
I am curious as to where in islamic law does it say that religion is determined by the father.
I am not a scholar on Islamic jurisprudence, but I dont think I have ever seen any doctrine under Islamic law where the religion was held to be determined by the father.

when will it end?

razib

I like being an infidel. There is something so exciting about being considered a 'pagan' and an 'infidel' ripe for hellfire and punishment. Its like, I am evil just by my very existence. Oh to be an untermenschen! Its so taboo and exciting.

What a great attitude to go around with in life, that everyone else is a scumbag, becase they are not of a certain religion, and to even be with them is a form of 'lowering' yourself. razib, I hate to say it, but that theology of Islam SUCKS big time.

While I admire your ability to compare apples and oranges, I pity your inability to distinguish them. You sound like a fundamentalist here... Rather than finding weaknesses, loop-holes and assumptions you resorted to lame comparison. Anyway, its your choice to maintain your mindset.

I like your comments, hammer_sickle, because of how far out they are. There aren't that many other conversations I could have on this blog that would allow me to mention aquatic ape theory. Thanks for the pity and allowing me the freedom of choice to "maintain [my] mindset". I object to your labeling my comparison "lame", though. I think aquatic ape theory has at least as much validity as the idea that the Taj Mahal was constructed under the direction of Hindus instead of Shah Jahan.

Now, if you were actually a socialist, you might be able to make a strained argument that the labor used to create the Taj Mahal was Hindu and therefore contemporary Hindus have a right to reclaim it. But then you'd have to be an atheist/marxist :)

I'm cracking up here. This gets Blunted fo' shizzle.

oh, and it's "sickle," poo-for-brains. Seriously, what's up with you and this Stephen Knapp site? "Knapp" is right...that thing's putting me to sleep.

Confound blogger and its irritable server syndrome...I want to POST, dammit!

"sickel" - I knew I had it wrong. Corrections made. thnx.

What? No response, hammer_sickle? :)

Saurav happily digs the knife in deeper

hammer and sickle bro

remember the story of the bird which told the monkeys not to mistake a firefly as fire itself .

People if you have points debate them ,just dont use rhetoric .

For your information stephen knapp is a world respected author of books on vedanta and hinduism.

try refuting the photographic evidence on the books.

try refuting the fact that the indian government has kept the upper floors of the taj mahal under lock and barrel from prying eyes to know the truth.

it is is easy to label people as fundamentalist , for a change saurav why dont you refute any one of the above points instead of just waving your silly ape theories in front of us.

ya and also as a by note

i am sure saurav the great visionary has greater vision than the following people.

1.Evan T Williams Prof of Chemistry
City Universuty of New York

A wooden piece from the riverside doorway of the Taj subjected to the
Carbon-14 test by an American laboratory, has revealed the door to be around 300 years older than Shahjahan

2. P. N. Oak the famous indian historian

3.Professor Marvin H. Mills

Pratt Institute, New York

oh but i forgot all the above are fundamentalists and are not endowed with the all seeing vision of saurav.

continue with your ape research bro

I had hoped that the ridiculousness of the theory would speak for itself, but it apparently does not, which leads me, if possible, to have an even lower opinion of the discoures on the fanatical Hindu right.

My use of Aquatic Ape Theory was a tool to be dismissive of the theory that Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple. That's because I wanted to demonstrate that it's possible to come up with theories, backing literature, and the bells and whistles of science when, in fact, the theories have very little merit when subjected to scrutiny. The one plus of AAT over the Taj Mahal theory that was proposed is that it's not motivated by a divisive political agenda.

Here are the first few articles I found on the Taj Mahal "controversy."

You have all the trappings of the process I described--a theory proposed by mavericks, which are then largely refuted by mainstream intellectuals. People with political motivations then seize upon these theories in order to make a point and advance their cause.

In this case, as someone clearly not in a position to evaluate the relative claims of Oak and the other scientists, I will take the word of wikipedia and the scientists quoted in one of the articles above before I grant that a building which clearly resembles all the Mughal architecture I've seen is "Hindu" and not "Muslim" (which is a ridiculous categorization anyway, given the at-least somewhat sycretic nature of a lot of Mughal stuff).

So now that I've engaged in the inquiry that you suggested, I challenge you to refute Aquatic Ape Theory, since we're apparently allowed to offer whatever theories we want with little or no substantiation from the rest of the field of the author of the theory and then expect lay people to refute them. Why are you avoiding it? Why is it ridiculous? It shares all the hallmarks of the theory that you're offering with the exceptions that the VHP hasn't endorsed it and it bears absolutely no resemblance to the Babri Masjid conflict.

saurav there you did it again

quoting selectively only from the sources you want to , the original question was on the legality of the claim ,maybe i should enlighten you with a basic premise of logic theory.

If hypothesis A is stated , for it to become a accepted proof , either sufficient proof has to be provided or it has to be disproved.

Smiles so where does your ape theory fit in here , it is easy to shoot off ones mouth linking two irrelevant things and claim to compare them.

note all the sources i mentioned above are not biased guys , for the matter two of them are americans .

it was you who started it off with your saracasm dripped tone about the empire building .

so who has the closed door mentality here , who is hiding from a debate , if you are so sure the taj is not a hindu temple then why dont you give the counter points .

it is easy to argue in a circular fashion ,linking one irrelevant topic to another and shifting the focus of discussion.

and one last piece of advice

while posting a link post a credible link ,wikipedia lol lol , that is nothign but user collected information all over the net.

try harder bro , try harder since you cannot give me a counter point all you will do is link a ape theory shift the focus to it and then the whole point of the discussion is subverted.

come with a counter point and then we can talk

taste of your own medicine

//So now that I've engaged in the inquiry that you suggested, I challenge you to refute Aquatic Ape Theory//

i will also "engage in your enquiry" and post a single link and that should take care of it .

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape.html

google is so helpful you know , but it takes a real open attitude and guts to refute the "valid" points raised.

as i said earlier shifting the focus is easy bro.

try harder

quotes

//My use of Aquatic Ape Theory was a tool to be dismissive of the theory that Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple. That's because I wanted to demonstrate that it's possible to come up with theories, backing literature, and the bells and whistles of science when, in fact, the theories have very little merit when subjected to scrutiny.//

so for one who confesses not to know about the taj

//In this case, as someone clearly not in a position to evaluate the relative claims of Oak and the other scientists//

who give you the right milord to sit in judgement ,lol i suppose this is the open minded attitude we are talking about .

//You have all the trappings of the process I described--a theory proposed by mavericks, which are then largely refuted by mainstream intellectuals//

Well well who are these main stream intellectuals may i know , did anyone at least start the enquiry process , why is the government afraid to open the closed doors , what is the counter proof you have .

As i said compare oranges to apples is easy , a theory backed by evidence and research is different from a theory based on fantasies .

try harder bro next come up with the aliens started life on earth theory and then link it to every discussion and say prove this or eles the other theory is false .

Okay two things by way of apology: I shouldn't have mocked what is apparently an extremely important issue to you (even though it was fun) and I shouldn't have formed a judgement on the basis of my superficial knowledge of the topic as I did on my first post. So I apologize for being mean, and I respect being called out on my $hit.

That said, having actually looked into it a little, I didn't find much to dissuade me from my initial reaction. I'm not qualified to assess the validity of the claim on its specifics (and I suspect you aren't either, since you've refered exclusively to other people's work rather than presenting any primary evidence); hence, I rely on what I glean to be the expert consensus here (if you actually click on the links I provided, one of them has an article that describes it). That's not to say that the consensus can't be wrong--the strength of science is that it has a mechanism for recognizing and correcting when its wrong.

But the burden of proof is on you; so far, all you've done is rehash theories that have been labeled as "discredited" by people with knowledge and without political agendas. You could still be right about the specifics, but you have a higher burden to meet to convince people like me.

A quick look at the materials I found left me with the conclusion that the "Taj Mahal is Hindu" effort is now a cynical exercise in using a largely marginal academic theory for political purposes.

Kind of like "intelligent design" or theories that deny that global warming exists. I brought up aquatic ape theory not to argue the merits (which I'm not qualified to do, actually), but to show why it's ridiculous to bring up a marginal theory without substantial backing in asking lay people to overturn their received "knowledge". I chose one without political implications so we could look at just the process and not get caught up in the politics of global warming or evolution or any other issue.

One more thing:

while posting a link post a credible link ,wikipedia lol lol , that is nothign but user collected information all over the net.

1) it has more credibility than you or me (single "user"s), because:
2) It's "user collected information"-- that's open to anyone who wants--with a user-reliant mechanism--that's open to anyone who wants--for correcting mistakes and/or pointing out biases that generally results in pretty decent (although not perfect) information. Look into smart mob theory; it's interesting. It's part of what most science relies on.