Just as TAJO MAHAL is told to be bult by MUSLIMS.Infact it was TAJO,MAHAL-LINK
|The Royal Emblem of King Anangoal, the true builder of the Red Fort, just above the entrance of the Khas Mahal in the Red Fort.|
Two life size elephants flanking the Delhi Gate of Delhi’s Red Fort.
CLOSE UP OF DOOR KNOB-BELOW-
PICTURE ABOVE- shows the entrance of the Moti Masjid inside the Red Fort. The archaeological tablet, raised outside, claims that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb, son and successor of Shah Jahan. But many believe that the claim is baseless due to the following reasons. Firstly, the entrance is of a temple design. Secondly, the arch between the domes there are stone carvings of banana bunches, which is used by the Hindus while worshipping their deities. Thirdly, the naming buildings after gems (Moti means pearl) is purely a Hindu custom. Fourthly, the truncated Hindu perambulatory passage may still be seen to exist on the building’s left flank. All these evidence suggest that, originally it was a Hindu temple and, later on, converted into a mosque by the Muslim invaders.
Indian history has been distorted to keep so called psudocesular issues active, which is basically let minority rule on majority and majority agree with that. What is the use of history that give a false teaching.It has been pointed out earlier that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the prophet of nonviolence, was the originator of the politics of Muslim appeasement in India. As we know, he was the most trusted as well as the most loyal stooge of the British Empire, it was not possible for him to demand India’s independence.
It should be noted that his concept of Hindu-Muslim amity was entirely biased and prejudiced. Only Hindus were to make every sacrifice for the sake of the said Hindu-Muslim amity. To achieve that Hindu-Muslim amity, Gandhi suggested alteration or distortion of Indian history, partcularly the period of Muslim rule. and two major guidelines, he set for this purpose, were, (1) Muslim rulers were not foreign invaders as they lived in India and died in India and (2) the Muslim rule in India was not a colonial rule but a golden period of Indian history. And following these guidelines, a group of dirty people called the secular historians, set to distort Indian history in a big way.
But what was the real nature of that Muslim colonial rule and what was the nature of Dhimmitude the Hindus had suffered for centuries after centuries? It is best described through a dialogue between Sultan Alauddin Khilji and a qazi called Mughisuddin. The incident has been narrated by Alauddin’s court chronicler Ziauddin Barni in Tarikh-i-Firozshahi. Barni wrote,
“One day Qazi Mughisuddin visited the court of Sultan Alauddin Khilji and the Sultan asked the qazi, ‘How are Hindus designated in the (Islamic) law, as payers of tribute (Kharaj-gauzar) or giver of tribute (Kharaj-dih)?’ The kazi replied, ‘They are called payers of tribute and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due subordination of the Zimmi (tribute payer) is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt in their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty. … Allah holds them in contempt, for He says, ‘Keep them in subjection’. To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them and make them captive, saying, ‘Convert them to Islam or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property. No doctor but the great doctor (Hanifa), to whose school we belong, has asserted to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘death or Islam’.” (H. M. Elliot & J. Dowson, HISTORY OF INDIA: As Told by It’s Own Historians, III,184).
In the First Part of the article, it has been narrated that, how the so called secular historians of India are wrongly projecting the barbaric Muslim ruler Shahjahan as the author of the famous Red Fort of Delhi, which was built by the Hindu Kings several centuries before the times of Shahjahan. In this Second Part, we shall discuss how these secular historians are narrating another cruel,barbaric and lecherous Muslim ruler Akbar as the author of the invincible fortress of Agra.
Like the Red Fort in Delhi, the fortress at Agra also suffers similar misrepresentation. The invincible fort at Agra, as we see it today, was not built by any foreign Muslim invader and its authorship is falsely atributed to Akbar.. This marvellous exhibit of Hindu architecture, was also built by the Hindu kings well before the arrival of the barbaric Muslim invaders in India. Like the Red Fort in Delhi, the Muslim invaders forcefully occupied it and used it as their royal court and residence. During the time of Mahabharata, Agra belonged to the kingdom of Mathura ruled by the oppressive king Kansa, who used the prison at Agra to incarcerate his political rivals. In this regard, the Muslim chronicler Abdulla in his Tarikh-i-Daudi writes, “He (Sultan Sikandar Lodi) generally resided at Agra; it is said by some that Agra became a city in his time, before which it had been a mere village , but one of the old standing. The Hindus, indeed, Assert that Agra was a strong place in the days of Raja Kansa, ruled in Mathura, and who confined everyone who displeased him, in the fort at that place, so that in course of time it had become the established state prison”.
But in the same work, chronicler Abdulla says that Muhammad of Ghazni captured Agra and reduced it to a heap of ruins and writes, “In the year when the army of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni invaded Hindustan, he so ruined Agra that it became one of the most insignificant villges of the land and after that it improved from the times of Sultan Sikandar, and at length, in Akbar’s time, became the seat of the government of Delhi, and one of the chief cities of Hindustan”. It is important to note here that the above description admits that before the invasion of Mahmud of Ghazni, Agra was city and not a village.
Another Muslim chronicler Nizmuddin Ahmed in his Tabaquat-i-Akbari writes, “In the year 972 H (1565 AD), the command was given by Akbar for building a new fort of hewn stone at Agra, instead of the old citadel, which was of bricks and had become ruinous. The foundation was laid and in four years the fortress was completed”. A Muslim poet named Diwan-i-Salman, who lived during the time of Muhammad Ghori, wrote some poems of historical value. In one of his poems, he said that during the time of Muhammad Ghori, the fortress of Agra was under the control of a Rajput king Jaipal. In the same poem he described the Agra fort and wrote, “The fort of Agra is built amongst the sands like a hill, and its battlements are like hillocks. No calamity had ever befallen its fortification, nor hd deceitful time dealt treacherously with it”. So, the question naturally arises- Which fort Diwan-i-Salman had seen? The fort he saw was definitely made of stone, otherwise he would not have compared it with a hill. Above all, is it possible to finish the construction of a massive fort made of stone, as we see it today, within a period of 4 years?
It should also be mentioned here that the Muslim chroniclers, who claim Akbar’s authorship of the fort at Agra, differ widely regarding the time taken by Akbar to complete the job. According to Abul Fazl, one of the ministers at the Akbar’s court, Akbar took 8 years to build the fort. While according to Jahngir, the son of Akbar, he took 15 years to complete the construction. It has been said earlier that according to Nizamuddin Ahmed, the job was done within a shortm period of 4 years. It is important to note here that there are other evidence that suggest that the fort of Agra was there during the time of Babur. Babur set his foot at the fort of Agra for the first time on May 4, 1526, and before that his son Humayun had taken control of the fort. Thereafter, Babur left Agra on February 11, 1527, and proceeded to face Maharana Sangram Singh in the battle of Khanua, leaving the fort in the care of his son Humayun. So, the rational conclusion is that, there was a massive fort, made of stone, at Agra under the control of a Rajput King Jaipal and Muhammad Ghori occupied it by defeating Jaipal in the year 1192. Thereafter, when the fort came under the control of the Mughals, Akbar might have undertaken some repair and renovation work of the then existing fort.
Above all, there is no dispute among our historians that, whether it is the Red Fort in Delhi or the invincible fortress at Agra, Hindu style, particularly the Gujarati and Rajasthani style, is very prominent in the construction of the interior palaces, courts, halls and so on. Especially, the pillars and the gateways of these halls and courts bear pure Hindu style of stone carving. It seems amusing when our historians, in their attempt to explain this overwhelming and pervasive Hindu influence, say that the Muslim rulers who, according to their belief, were very sympathetic to the Hindus, deliberately encouraged Hindu style in building their edifices to promote Hindu-Muslim amity.
So, a group of historins, having more rational views, believe that all the historical monuments of Delhi and Agra, the authorship of which is at present being wrongly atributed to the Muslim rulers, were, in fact, built by the Hindu kings well before the arrival of the foreign Muslim invders. They also believe that in their endeavour to give these monuments an Islamic face, the Muslim rulers, in the name of repair and renovation, removed almost all the Hindu symbols from these monuments and buried them somewhere within the peripfery of those monuments. So a thorough scientific and archaeological investigations is urgently called for revealing the truth and settling all such contrary views.
According to Oak, Prithviraj Raso, a contemporary chronicle tells us that Prithviraj Chauhan, the king who ruled Ajmer and Delhi, lived in a palace on the bank of river Yamuna. Traditional accounts also tell us that Prithviraj’s palace was known as Lal-Kot, that is, a red-walled structure. The only building in Delhi which answers four-square to these specifications is what is today known as the Red Fort. And yet the Mogul emperor Shahjahan is being wrongly given the credit of having built the Red Fort in Delhi.
Old Delhi was not founded by Shahjahan
Taimurlang who invaded Delhi in 1398, that is nearly 250 years before Shahjahan, refers to Old Delhi whose inhabitants he massacred. And yet Old Delhi is mentioned in our histories as a city founded by Shahjahan. In fact Old Delhi is built around the axial road – The Chandni Chowk - which joins the Red Fort with the building which is now known as the Fatehpuri Mosque but which was the temple of the hereditary deity of Delhi’s Hindu rulers. So even 400 years before Shahjahan, Old Delhi, Red Fort and Chandnin Chowk did exist.
Raj Ghat or Badshah Ghat
The Yamuna bank to the rear of the fort is known as Raj-ghat. That is a Sanskrit word. It could not have stuck on unless several generations of Rajas had occupied the Red Fort prior to Shahjahan and his predecessors. No Rajas ever ruled from the Red Fort after Shahjahan, the fifth generation Mogul ruler. Had Shahjahan built the fort, the bank stretch of the Yamuna at the rear would have been known as the Badshah Ghat and not Rajghat.
The Delhi gate of the fort has a pair of stone elephants outside it. Islam strictly forbids the raising of any images while Rajput monarchs were known for their love of the elephant. On either side of the fort, archways are embossed with stone-flower emblems which appear on all mediaeval Hindu buildings. Running water channels, through which Yamuna water coursed its way throughout the fort, again suggest Rajput construction because Muslims with a desert tradition could never have thought of running-water channels.
The Sbravan and Bhado pavilions and the Kesar Kund in the Diwan-i-Khas are again all Hindu terms. The Diwan-i-Khas and the Diwan-i-Aam do not have a single dome or minaret which the Muslim architecture is believed to insist on. The marble balcony in which the ruler used to sit in the Diwan-i-Aam has a temple type ceiling with stalactite style ends nicking out obliquely. The Diwan i-Khas has a striking similarity with the royal apartment inside Ambar (old Jaipur) built by the Rajputs in pre-Mogul times.
Every one of the Mogul rulers had a harem of 5,000 women as mentioned in memoirs and chronicles. All of them, the ruler himself and his many children could by no stretch of imagination be accommodated in the two-three rooms that comprise the Diwan-i Khas. The Diwan-i_khas and the Diwan-i-Aam have a mandap style ornate Hindu workmanship. Besides, the Diwan-i-Khas bears a close resemblance to the interior palace in Ambar (Old Jaipur) built around 984 A.D.
Symbol of justice
A marble grill wall near the Diwan-i-Khas displays a balance motif symbolic of royal justice. The Mogul rulers who regarded 99 per cent of their subjects as mere vermin could never think of flaunting that symbol of justice in their palace. But the Rajput rulers advised by their Brahman councillors did certainly have the dispensation of justice as one of their primary functions constantly impressed on them through the scales motif.
Heaven on earth?
A Persian couplet inlaid on a wall of the Diwan-i-Khas proclaims the place as a veritable "Heaven on Earth'. Such a boast can only emanate from a captor. Had Shahjahan been the original builder of the fort he would never have described the building in such superlative terms. The original builder is often very modest about his construction. Moreover a builder is more conscious of the building's defects to ever think of calling it a veritable "Heaven on Earth'.
A psychological principle
Another important psychological principle also applies in this case. A person calls his building a shack or a cottage rather than a paradise. It is also worthwhile considering that no matter how beautiful a wife a man may have he would never shout about her beauty from the road square or housetops. Similarly a person who toils and spends money to build a building is not the one who boasts about it. On the other hand neighbours or strangers, who have an evil eye on a building or a woman, are the ones who praise the physical beauty of those attractions.
A psychological principle
We have on actual instance from mediaeval history. Padmini, the queen of Chitor fort is famed for her physical allure. There could have been hundreds of women as beautiful as her in India's Kshatriya households. But histories have been silent regarding their physical beauty precisely because such beauty was never bragged about at least in India in public. But Padmini's physical beauty came to be talked about only because Allauddin Khilji was so enamoured of her that he moved heaven and hell to capture her.
The couplet was inlaid by the captors
This should convince visitors to the Red Fort, and historians that the bragging Persian couplet in the Diwan-i Khas is yet another very strong proof that the couplet was inlaid by the captors of the fort who, dazzled by the ornate beauty of the monument that came to them as war booty, characterized it as a veritable paradise.
Non-Islamic shrines near Red Fort
Emerging from the Red Fort we see that the two nearest shrines, only a stone’s throw from the fort, are both non-Moguls. One is the red Jain Temple and the other the Gauri Shankar Temple. Had Shahjahan built the Red Fort he would never have allowed the two non-Islamic shrines to remain there. These two temples are there because the fort was constructed by the Rajputs several centuries before Shahjahan.
Chandni Chowk’s inhabitants
Chandni Chowk, the main thoroughfare stemming from the fort is almost exclusively inhabited by Hindus. Had the Moguls built the fort we should have seen Turks, Afghans, Persians, Arabs and Hindu converts settled in Cbandni Chowk. The whole of Old Delhi has a teeming and over-whelming Hindu population. In its complicated, winding alleys all their homes too are built in the traditional Hindu style. To maintain that a cruel despot like Shahjahan built houses for Hindus and fortified the whole city with a massive wall is absurd. As Taimuriang's autobiography testifies Old Delhi existed centuries before Shahjahan.P.n.Oak books download link