Talk:Mumtaz Mahal

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. India: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance). Women's History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 27, 2019, June 17, 2019, and June 17, 2023.

Was it June 7th or June 17th, 1631

16:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC) I think it is June 7th  Doctor Bruno  17:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Mumtaz Mahal's death, I found some contridictory dates regarding her death. Some sources state that her death was in 1631 (and is also mentioned to have had a child just before her death when her last child, Gauhara Begum, was born). Yet some sources mark her death in the year 1629. One source that supports the latter, that being The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol 19, 1984 edition. In the article concerning the Taj Mahal, it states as quotes:

The Indian ruler Shah Jahan ordered it [the Taj Mahal] built in memory of his favorite wife, Mumtaz Mahal, who died in 1629.

Can someone explain the contridictory dates of death as well as why such contridictory dates exist? Fuelsaver (talk) 6:01 PM, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Without seeing the other sources it's hard to tell, but Ebba Koch, a leading authority on Mughal architecture, especially the Taj gives the date as the night between the 16-17th June 1631. One possible explanation might be the differences between the Islamic and Gregorian calendar. Certainly the Urs (anniversary of her death) celebrations weren't held on the 17th June every year, the first was held on 22 June 1632 and the second on 26th May 1633. --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining Joopercoopers, It is more understandible now. (For anyone who notices anything different regarding my question asked earlier, the phrase "her death when" in the sentence concerning the birth of Gauhara Begum before Mumtaz Mahal's death, that wasn't originally there. I forgot to insert that in the sentence so I placed it in there so that it would make sense. Sorry to anyone who misunderstood earlier). User:Fuelsaver (User talk:Fuelsaver) 6:41 PM, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'd chuck out that 1984 encyclopaedia if I were you :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know her husband was a very religious muslim, so was she always a hindu or did she convert somewhere along the line?

She was Persian and muslim**

Many books have given the number of children as 14. Even the article on

says Gauhara Begum (June 17, 1631-1706) was the fourteenth and final child of the Mughal emperor, Shah Jahan I, and his favorite wife, Mumtaz Mahal. Mumtaz Mahal died giving birth to her. ' Also many books say that the date is June 7th. Can some one please check  Doctor Bruno  18:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that four of her fourteen kids's names are lost to history. 203.11.71.124 (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes 2409:4064:205:DE31:0:0:25A8:E8AC (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the interpretation of her name a little bit too imaginative? As far as I know the Arabic word mumtaz just meens excellent.--84.217.192.83 (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly unlikely that her name means "beloved ornament of the palace". This claim seems to come from Richard Bernstein's "The East, the West, and Sex" where it is also unattributed. According to Google Translate for Persian, ممتاز (mumtaz) means - as it does in Arabic - simply "excellent" or "great". محل (mahal) means "place" literally and could conceivably mean palace. Following Arabic grammatical rules, which is a possibility, her name could mean "wonderful (one) of the palace". Persian rules would produce an odd result, "excellent place". Either way, there is nothing about a beloved ornament here. --Agh.niyya (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fatehpuri mahal is Second wife of Shah Jahan but not related as personal name or nick name or palace name of Arjumand Banu or undying love name of mamtaj mahal. Shafiqur Mazumdar (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, it is stated she died in a car crash. Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.71.175 (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just some vandalism typed in by a racist who doesn't even know the Mughal empire and its history... Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some user(Ahmad2099 from Saudi Arabia) recently removed the Persian ancestory of Mumtaz mahal & Iranian people tag for whatever reason. They also added an Arabic name before Persian/Urdu version. I don't see any reason why Arabic must be included in the name as Mumtaz Mahal was not in any shape or form related to Arabs. I'm guessing such edits have something to do with Arab nationalism. Anyway that edit was reverted. --74.12.104.201 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

74.12.104.201, I know she was't from an Arab descent neither a persian, she was a Mughal queen [1]. Ahmad2099 (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was Persian. Her family was from Tehran, Iran. Her father and Nur Jahan were sibilings with origins in Persia. She was not a Mongol AT ALL. She is Indian-Persian.

I also mention you keep removing her Shia religion. Not that her religion is that important, but this and removing the Persian ancestory seems a bit fishy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.102.219 (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the article with a reliable resource first. Thanks Ahmad2099 (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are listed as citation in the bottom of the article. They are in form of physical books. Please visit the nearest library in your town/area. I don't understand what is it that you are questioning? Her faith being Shia or her being Persian? --74.12.102.219 (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea if you take a look at Mughal_Empire & Nur Jahan. --74.12.102.219 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the whole discussion on Mumtaz Mahal's ancestry: [2] & [3]. Ghia´s Beg of Ṭahrán is her grandfather. He was father of

]

Here is Another source in Encyclopaedia Iranica, which is a reliable online sources. You can basically search Nur Jahan on its website & this article will pop up. I'm not sure how I can add it to the main article, so feel free to do so if you can:

MEHRDAD SHOKOOHY, " GĪĀṮBEG (Gīāṯ-al-Dīn Moḥammad Tehrānī), ʿEʿTEMĀD-AL-DAWLA ", available at www.iranica.com . --Ddd0dd (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw in a book about Mumtaz Mahal's hatred of Christianity. According to what I read, she was a fanatic, urging her husband to raze the Portugese colony at Hooghly (NE coast of India). And, as final proof, her sarcophagus was inscribed, "Lord, defend us from the tribe of unbelievers."

Can someone verify this? Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Begley, Wayne E.; Desai, Z.A. (Hardback). Taj Mahal — The Illumined Tomb. University of Washington Press. pp. 392.

ISBN 978-0295969442

. is a good book. There's a section at the end entitled "European references to the character of Shah Jahan and Mumtaz Mahal". The introductory paragraphs contain the following:

Most of the European criticisms - whether of Shah Jahan, Mumtaz Mahal of Jahanara - are clealy based upon hearsay and gossip. The reliability of the criticisms is of course highly suspect, but perhaps not more so than the excessive falttery of the court histories.....

With that in mind, they then quote a contemporary italian traveller called Niccolao Manucci.

......[I, pp. 175-76] Finding himself undisputed king of Hindustan, Shah Jahan was compelled to make war against the portuguese of Hugli, for this was demanded by Taj Mahal, from whom the Portuguese had carried off two slave girls. He sent against them the general Qasim Khan, who, when he arived close to Hugli, made an arrangement with the Portuguese. These paid a large sum of money; whereupon he retired the distance of a day's journey, but again advanced towards Hugli, with the excuse that the King had ordered him to take the place.

They defended themselves as long as they could, but, unable to continue longer, they surrendered. Qasim Khan seized by lot 5,000 souls, among them some Augustinian and Jesuit fathers. It seemed as if God desired to chastise the Portuguese of Hugli, seeing that they were unable to escape with their ships by way of the river Ganges, on the banks of which the town referred to stands.

The water in the river had fallen, and the boats lay stranded, a thing that had nevere [sic] happened before or since.....Qasim Khan carried off the prisoners to court, but God willed that before they arrived there, the queen Taj Mahal, should die.....

[p.177] There cannot be the least doubt that if the Portuguese had reached the court in the lifetime of Taj Mahal, she would have orderered the whole of them to be cut into pieces after great tortures, for thus had she sworn when they did her the injury. All the same, they did not escape a sufficient amount of suffering; some abjured their faith, either from fear of torture or death, or through the desire of recovering their wives, who had been distributed by Shah Jahan among his officers.

--Joopercoopers (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro someone states that her body remained at Burhanpur for 23 years until the completion of the Taj Mahal, but toward the end of the article it says her body was disinterred 6 months after her death and brought to Agra to await the building's completion. Which is correct? Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, nothing is wrong with the spelling here. Spelling rules had not yet been established. The rule was if the reader could understand it, it was spelled correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.204.129 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this section? All of it was cut-n-pasted on 18 September 2010 by User 183.177.124.7 from Citizendium, "Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal", which had last been modified on 27 May 2010. --Wikiain (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Wikiain (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please aske any body expert in persian or arabic language . Mumtaz in both language means : the best- excellent super and Mahal means place - region. so Mumtaz Mahal means "the best or excellent or super of the region ") please see book of Dr. hekmat e shrazi late ambassador to india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maahmaah (talk • contribs) 04:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Maahmaah - we can't ask experts here - only quote them. We have multiple sources for the translation - if you have a contrary one, then please provide it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the images refers to the tomb as a "cenotaph." This word specifically means a tomb in which there is no body. Is this then the correct word? Because the remainder of the article implies strongly that both husband and wife are buried in the Taj Mahal. --Skb8721 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the other language WPs seem to think she was born in April 1593 (6 April, 15 April, or just April). Why do we say 1 September? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mumtaz Mahal/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I am not sure that Shah jahan built the Taj or not. I have another link which clearly expalin that it is a hindu temple and Shah Jahan acquired it.If you have any idean can post the comment. Thanks, Sanjay

Last edited at 14:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

A recent edit adds the Urdu (Nastaliq script) spelling of Mumtaz Mahal to her infobox. I don't read this script, but I tried tranliterating it in Google Translate. It returned "Mumtazhehel", which may or may not be correct. Would any editor who has familiarity with the Nastaliq script please verify that the recent IP edit gives the correct Nastaliq rendition of "Mumtaz Mahal"?--Quisqualis (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]