01-06-2006, 11:12 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->but there is one thing new to me ,isnt PN Oak's work authentic , stephen knapp often quotes him in the evidence of the tejomahalaya , or are we wrong on this one?
if you could put a link in the context of controversy surrounding P N Oak from a neutral third party it would be great <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read stephen knapp and I know he quotes P.N Oak but doesn't mean P.N Oak's work is truthful, I am sorry to say this but P.N Oak is a crackpot and because of his writings Hindus end up looking like idiots, his writings are good cannon fodder for our enemies, I shudder to think of the day when on a nation wide TV debate som BJP wallah refers to P.N Oak myths infront of some commie traitor like Romila Thapar, he will end up making the entire Hindu samaj look like idiots. Here is a sample of P.N Oak and why I think his writings are utter nonsense:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Another fairly common tactic was to lump the temple argumentation with the fringe school led by P.N. Oak, which holds that every indo-Muslim building (e.g. the Taj Mahal)38 was in fact a Hindu temple, not demolished but only transformed. However, this school happened to have aligned itself with the eminent historians against the VHP. Oak himself explained that the Babri Masjid itself was built by Hindus as a temple, that âBabar had nothing to do with the Babri Masjidâ, and that neither the Moghul nor any other Muslim ruler had demolished a Hindu temple at the site.39 Oakâs version of history is of a kind with the contrived scenarios thought up by the eminent historians.
Another spokesman of this school, Jeevan Kulkarni from Bombay, claimed that the Babri Masjid was a Hindu temple built by Hindus before the Muslim conquest. He even approached the Supreme Court to obtain permission to prove his point by means of thermo-luminescence and other advanced archaeological techniques, as well as an injunction to solve the dispute by preserving the building (as Muslims demand, in the âmistakenâ belief that the building was built as a mosque) but allotting it to the Hindus to serve as the ârestoredâ Rama temple which it was meant to be when it was built. Again, this school was wrongly identified with the VHP position.
http://voiceofdharma.com/books/acat/ch11.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if you could put a link in the context of controversy surrounding P N Oak from a neutral third party it would be great <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read stephen knapp and I know he quotes P.N Oak but doesn't mean P.N Oak's work is truthful, I am sorry to say this but P.N Oak is a crackpot and because of his writings Hindus end up looking like idiots, his writings are good cannon fodder for our enemies, I shudder to think of the day when on a nation wide TV debate som BJP wallah refers to P.N Oak myths infront of some commie traitor like Romila Thapar, he will end up making the entire Hindu samaj look like idiots. Here is a sample of P.N Oak and why I think his writings are utter nonsense:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Another fairly common tactic was to lump the temple argumentation with the fringe school led by P.N. Oak, which holds that every indo-Muslim building (e.g. the Taj Mahal)38 was in fact a Hindu temple, not demolished but only transformed. However, this school happened to have aligned itself with the eminent historians against the VHP. Oak himself explained that the Babri Masjid itself was built by Hindus as a temple, that âBabar had nothing to do with the Babri Masjidâ, and that neither the Moghul nor any other Muslim ruler had demolished a Hindu temple at the site.39 Oakâs version of history is of a kind with the contrived scenarios thought up by the eminent historians.
Another spokesman of this school, Jeevan Kulkarni from Bombay, claimed that the Babri Masjid was a Hindu temple built by Hindus before the Muslim conquest. He even approached the Supreme Court to obtain permission to prove his point by means of thermo-luminescence and other advanced archaeological techniques, as well as an injunction to solve the dispute by preserving the building (as Muslims demand, in the âmistakenâ belief that the building was built as a mosque) but allotting it to the Hindus to serve as the ârestoredâ Rama temple which it was meant to be when it was built. Again, this school was wrongly identified with the VHP position.
http://voiceofdharma.com/books/acat/ch11.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->