08-28-2008, 04:12 PM
Aurangzeb and Moti Masjid Delhi
Aurangzeb was a fanatic fundamentalist Sunni Muslim. He is said to have ordered for building the Moti Masjid in Shahjahanabad in Delhi. Fine. But a Sunni Muslim ordering for a Masjid to be built could never have ordered for floral depections as that is against Islam! But see the floral depictions in the interior cusped or Nagabandha arches at http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritche...motimasjid.html
The minor decorative pillars outside have also floral (padma) motives. This Moti Masjid is clearly not a building of a Sunni Aurangzeb.
If Aurangzeb hadnât built Moti Masjid, certainly not Shahjahan and no one after Aurangzeb, and the structure is in the same style as the Khas Mahal, Divans etc., we must simply admit that it is not a Mughal construction! The style of the Moti Masjid is completely within the style of the rest of the Shahjahan buildings, like the Khas Mahal, etc.. Are these also not Shahjahanâs? Did Shahjahan usurp existing buildings and give it some minor cosmetic changes like he did with Raja Mansinghâs Palace, famous as Taj Mahal?
There is a painting preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, reproduced in the Illustrated Weekly of India (page 32) of March 14, 1971. Shahjahan ascended the throne in 1628 A.D. This contemporary painting shows him receiving the Persian ambassador in ca. 1628 (!) itself, in the Diwan-i-Aam of the Red Fort. If true, how can Shahjahan receive a Persian ambassador in the Diwan-I Am in Shahjahanabad Red Fort in ca. 1628, if that city was supposed to have been built in the 1640s? Why was this information, correct or not, added to the painting?
Retrieved from: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/red_fort_photo_two.htm
Shahjahan certainly was capable of twisting history, which in fact he did. Keene:"Shahjahan surpassed all the Moghul emperors in autocratic pride, and was the first of them to safeguard the throne by murdering all possible rivals According to Roe who knew Shahjahan personally, his nature was unbending and mingled with extreme pride, and contempt of all."
Shahjahan ordered Kamgar Khan to make a new account of Jahangir's reign after the latter's death, to carefully eliminate from Jahangir's own chronicle all adverse references to the rebellious Shahjahan when the latter was a prince. Sir H.M. Elliot observes: "He (Kamgar Khan) was at last induced to undertake it (writing a spurious history of Jahangir's reign) at the instigation of the emperor Shahjahan in the third year of his reign."
Begley: "Shahjahan himself was probably responsible for this twisting of historical truth. The truth would have shown him to be inconsistent and this could not be tolerated. For this reason also, the histories contain no statements of any kind that are critical of the Emperor or his policies, and even military defeats are rationalized so that no blame could be attached to him. ... effusive praise of the Emperor is carried to such extremes that he seems more a divinity than a mortal man." [Begley & Desai: Taj Mahal - The Illumined Tomb, p. xxvi]
It seems to have been customary to have flatterers as court biographers (Abul Fazl and alike) who wrote down what they were ordered to or what did please their patrons, even though not true. Jahangir was also rebellious and had Abul Fazl killed in that period. Sir H. M. Elliot about Jahangirâs biographies: âThere are several works which profess to be the Autobiographical Memoirs of the Emperor Jahangir and there is confusion in their titles.. There are two distinct editions of the Memoirs which differ entirely from each other, Major Price translated one, Anderson wrote upon the other. It will be seen also that there are varieties of each edition.â
Aurangzeb was a fanatic fundamentalist Sunni Muslim. He is said to have ordered for building the Moti Masjid in Shahjahanabad in Delhi. Fine. But a Sunni Muslim ordering for a Masjid to be built could never have ordered for floral depections as that is against Islam! But see the floral depictions in the interior cusped or Nagabandha arches at http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritche...motimasjid.html
The minor decorative pillars outside have also floral (padma) motives. This Moti Masjid is clearly not a building of a Sunni Aurangzeb.
If Aurangzeb hadnât built Moti Masjid, certainly not Shahjahan and no one after Aurangzeb, and the structure is in the same style as the Khas Mahal, Divans etc., we must simply admit that it is not a Mughal construction! The style of the Moti Masjid is completely within the style of the rest of the Shahjahan buildings, like the Khas Mahal, etc.. Are these also not Shahjahanâs? Did Shahjahan usurp existing buildings and give it some minor cosmetic changes like he did with Raja Mansinghâs Palace, famous as Taj Mahal?
There is a painting preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, reproduced in the Illustrated Weekly of India (page 32) of March 14, 1971. Shahjahan ascended the throne in 1628 A.D. This contemporary painting shows him receiving the Persian ambassador in ca. 1628 (!) itself, in the Diwan-i-Aam of the Red Fort. If true, how can Shahjahan receive a Persian ambassador in the Diwan-I Am in Shahjahanabad Red Fort in ca. 1628, if that city was supposed to have been built in the 1640s? Why was this information, correct or not, added to the painting?
Retrieved from: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/red_fort_photo_two.htm
Shahjahan certainly was capable of twisting history, which in fact he did. Keene:"Shahjahan surpassed all the Moghul emperors in autocratic pride, and was the first of them to safeguard the throne by murdering all possible rivals According to Roe who knew Shahjahan personally, his nature was unbending and mingled with extreme pride, and contempt of all."
Shahjahan ordered Kamgar Khan to make a new account of Jahangir's reign after the latter's death, to carefully eliminate from Jahangir's own chronicle all adverse references to the rebellious Shahjahan when the latter was a prince. Sir H.M. Elliot observes: "He (Kamgar Khan) was at last induced to undertake it (writing a spurious history of Jahangir's reign) at the instigation of the emperor Shahjahan in the third year of his reign."
Begley: "Shahjahan himself was probably responsible for this twisting of historical truth. The truth would have shown him to be inconsistent and this could not be tolerated. For this reason also, the histories contain no statements of any kind that are critical of the Emperor or his policies, and even military defeats are rationalized so that no blame could be attached to him. ... effusive praise of the Emperor is carried to such extremes that he seems more a divinity than a mortal man." [Begley & Desai: Taj Mahal - The Illumined Tomb, p. xxvi]
It seems to have been customary to have flatterers as court biographers (Abul Fazl and alike) who wrote down what they were ordered to or what did please their patrons, even though not true. Jahangir was also rebellious and had Abul Fazl killed in that period. Sir H. M. Elliot about Jahangirâs biographies: âThere are several works which profess to be the Autobiographical Memoirs of the Emperor Jahangir and there is confusion in their titles.. There are two distinct editions of the Memoirs which differ entirely from each other, Major Price translated one, Anderson wrote upon the other. It will be seen also that there are varieties of each edition.â