Talk:Shah Jahan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sikh assault 1628[edit]

It is mentioned in this article that during Shah Jahan's reign in the year 1628, Sikhs ambushed a Mughal force and the Sikh Guru Har Gobind, was enlisting large bands of mercenaries to fight the new Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan. After the Mughals defeated the Guru he fled to the hills.[1]


How European chroniclers defamed Muslim rulers[edit]

Ali Pasha, Saladin, Akbar, Shah Jahan, Yusuf ibn Tashfin, Hyder Ali have all been accused of incest, bisexuality, and clearly the worst of moral behavior by almost every European chronicler who came across them...

Therefore this issue regarding Shah Jahan and Jahanara Begum is no different than the depictions of the Prophet Muhammed, in medieval or modern's all a very nasty attempt to defame and malign the reputation of almost everyone who happens to be Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


Jahanara Begum was trying to help her isolated and ailing father Shah Jahan, accusing anyone of incest is morally and ethically negative, she was later married and her tomb exists till today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Add this picture[edit]

Dear Wiipedia, Please add this amazing picture of Shah Jahan found in: ( and ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


Dear Wikipedia, how is possible for the Mughal Emperors who, were the descendent's of Mongol Hordes from the steppes of Asia to be direct descendants of: Western European kings and emperors such as Emperor Charlemagne, the King of the Franks, King of the Lombards and the Emperor of the Romans???.

No such presumptions have ever been made by Mughal historians (this is a very important and realistic fact that should be noted down). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Genocide and incest[edit]

Can JASpencer provide references to his edits regarding Shah Jehan related genocide and incestuous relationships. Jay 06:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would like to second that request. AxelBoldt 20:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Following content moved from article. It can be put back after discussion. Jay 18:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Although a grandson of the Muslim apostate Akbar the Great he was a firmly orthodox Muslim who initiated forty-eight military campaigns against non-Muslims in less than thirty years. Following the Ottoman practice, on coming to the throne in 1628 he killed all his male relatives except one who escaped to Persia. "

"In Benares during his reign 76 Hindu temples were destroyed, as well as Christian churches at Agra and Lahore. At the end of the three month siege of the Portuguese enclave of Hugh, he had ten thousand inhabitants massacred and four thousand were later killed after refusing to convert to Islam. "

"Shah Jahan had 5,000 concubines and also conducted affairs with his daughters Chamani and Jahanara."

Hi. The source I used was [[here|]. A hostile article, but I tried to take out the factual statements. I will try and see if I have the source book and get any footnotes.


I have changed the supposed full title "Padshah Shah Jahan I" to Shah Jahan. I've never heard of such a title. Google also returns only Wikipedia-related sites. Jay 18:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Hi AxelBoldt, why have you put back the image ? Any idea why it was removed in the first place ? Jay 18:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why it was removed and there's no record in the article's history. I have restored it because it seems relevant. AxelBoldt 11:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My God, I can't believe people are citing Serge Trifkovic as a source on history. Thats like me using Anne Coulter or Michael Moore in an article on American politicss. DigiBullet 20:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


"most Mughal Emperors killed their fathers upon succession." What is the basis for this statement ? Jay 07:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not their fathers but their brothers, and not necessarily upon succession but before if possible. The problem was that Islamic law of inheritance demands the division of property, so princes would have to divide the kingdom on the death of the king. The presence of more than one son invariably led to war between the scions. Jahangir had no brother left when he succeeded. Shah Jahan killed his elder brother Khusrau in 1622, and his younger brother Shahriyar upon accession in 1628. Another brother had died from drinking too much. Shah Jahan tried in vain to install his eldest son Dara Shukoh as heir apparent. His other sons refused to agree and fought until Aurangzeb won. He killed Dara Shukoh and his younger brother Murad, not without legalizing it. Another brother fled to Burma. The same happened with Aurangzeb's sons. Curryfranke (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Well, after taking a stab at editing his SON's article, it appears that it might be rational to re-organize this one too. It rambles, it lacks continuity of voice, it jumps around temporally, and repeats some pretty silly stuff without attribution or sources...

So.... I'm editing. Comments? Rick Boatright 4 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

Go for it Rick! Nemonoman 4 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)


as far as i know, the picture shown is not Shah Jehan but Jehangir... Antares911 16:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Urdu/Persian Spelling of Shah Jahan[edit]

How is it actually spelled? The first paragraph uses two spellings, شاہ جحاں and شاہ جہان

the first one is correct. it is a heh doachashmee, not the Heh.Dlayiga 05:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Religious Intolerance Blanking[edit]

Here's what I blanked: Religious intolerance Despite the fact that his mother was Hindu, Shah Jahan did not follow the liberal religious policy instituted by his grandfather, Emperor Akbar. In particular he ordered the destruction of recently built Hindu temples. There are some claims that Hindu scriptures dating back 500 years prior to Shah's birth lay beneath markings in the Taj Mahal suggesting the great wonder was actually a Hindu temple [1]. However, most historians and archeologists refute this claim as baseless.

I can find no references AT ALL to Shah Jahan ordering the destruction of recently built Hindu temples.

The Taj reference is so non-credible it doesn't deserve being played out anywhere, although it is discussed thoroughly in the Taj Mahal article...but in ANY CASE, credible or not, IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO SHAH JAHANS RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.

Shah Jahan made a half-hearted attempt to reinstate the Jizya (a tax on Non-muslims prescribed by the Sharia), but this was more an indication of a ruler trying to find yet another revenue source.

From all accounts I find, once instated as emperor, Shah Jahan couldn't care about Religion one way or the other. His interests lay elsewhere...mostly marble, jewels, and females.

If you take out the non-documented information, you are left with the information that Shah Jahan's mother was hindu. Not really enough to support a section on religious intolerance.

If somebody wants to document religious intolerance by EVIDENCE (see the Aurangzeb article and discussion for exammple), then by all means put something here. Right now, it's just tissue paper with no substance.

I forgot to sign this comment when I made it on 5 Aug 2006--Nemonoman 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


The discussion of the Incest allegations and his promiscuity and orgies is of course relevant. The Mughal Era is by no means poor in scandals and promiscuity, but Shah Jahan was exceptionally infamous in that regard. He was the Pope Alexander VI of the Mughal Era. --Combes 02:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For a moment, I thought you made this comment seriously. What an amusing person you are!--Nemonoman 06:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry. You were serious.
Shah Jahan triumphed in dozens of battles, managed to claw his way to the Peacock Throne, expanded the Mughal Empire, built dozens of the most beautiful buildings the world has seen, created the Taj Mahal, was deposed by his own son after a war where most of his children killed each other -- in other words he changed the course of history --and you think (1): that he had a harem and (2) that 4 Europeans accused him of incest deserve all that attention? Consider the sources for Pete's sake. The whole section is pitiful. --Nemonoman 06:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
i agree. this page is in seriosu serious need of a rewrite, which i will work on when i have time --Mightier than the sword 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

i mean for god's sake, the guy was an accomplished warrior, poet, administrator, etc. he built one of the world's greatest cities. instead, the main thrust of this article is sexual allegations by tourists in his kingdom? im not doubting that there is a place for this section, just that we need to balance it out with a bit more analysis of the man. those same travelogues state that the mughals were duplicitous, dark faced, treacherous orientals. should we add that in also?--Mightier than the sword 23:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Legend of Taj not being visible from the Sheesh Mahal[edit]

"Legends include one that says that though the Taj is not directly visible from the Sheesh Mahal (Agra) in the Agra Fort, it is constructed such that it can be seen in its multitude of mirrors."

I've never commented or contributed to wikipedia before, so I'm not too sure how this works. I had to point out that the above statement is absurd to anyone that has ever been to the Agra Fort. The Taj Mahal is directly visible from the Sheesh Mahal. If that's a legend, it would only be a legend among those who have never been to Agra Fort. Such a statement about such a legend does not seem to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia.

move the pic into the info box[edit]

can someone do it?--D-Boy 21:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Nemonoman 22:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


I came across this wikipage: Princess Manmati, Which states that she is Jahan's mother. However, this article gives Jahan's mother a very different name. Can anyone check this out, and if it checks out, introduce correct links into this article? Omegastar (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's OK. Manmati was her personal name, Princess Jagat-Gosaini was her title as daughter of the maharajah of Jodhpur. When she married Jahangir, she was styled Taj Bibi, and when she died, she was given the posthumous name Bilqis-Makani, i.e. "having the same rank (in paradise) like Bilqis (the wise queen of Sheba)". Curryfranke (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Urdu before Persian?[edit]

Why is Shah Jahan's name translated into Urdu (based off Perso-Arabic script) before Persian? Shah Jahan was 'Persianic' and his name is literally Persian which is what Urdu is based off of. The other Mughl rulers, Akbar, Humuyan, etc are all named in Persian but this wikipage has Urdu. Change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talkcontribs) 09:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

took away[edit]

"...about 2/10 the size of modern India." Apperentely the area is much larger then 2/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical passage[edit]

This passage makes no sense:

After she died an accidental death while giving birth to her 14th child, when emperor shajahan travelled Balapur fort to Burhanpur mother of Mirza Azam and elder daughter of Shahzada Badi uz-Zaman Mirza,"alis" Shah Nawaz Khan, of the Safawi dynasty Dilrus Banu wife of Auranzeb along with Mumtaz and cousin brother shah beg khan along with milatary three fold night stay near argaon at Hiwarkhed before the 14th child birth. Shahanshah Shah Jahan never remarried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwend (talkcontribs) 05:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Dates and calendars[edit]

We’re showing his vital dates as January 5, 1592 – January 22, 1666. These seem to be using the Old Style calendar. The New Style equivalents would have added 10 days to both dates: January 15, 1592 [2] and February 1, 1666 [3], [4].

Before I make any edits along these lines, does anyone disagree with the above? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 16:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is Old Style calendar throughout the article. Do we want to check all articles on the 17th century on Old Style or New Style dates? Is there a guideline which one to use? Britain including her American colonies had not switched to New Style dates then, therefore most English histories of the time have Old Style.
I've checked Shah Jahan's birthday with the official chronicler Muhammad Amin Qazvini. He gives Shah Jahan's birthday in the Islamic calendar as the eve of 1st Rabi' al-thani 1000 of the Hijra, 10:28 pm. This gives AD 15th January 1592 New Style and AD 5th January 1592 Old Style, given that Islamic days start at sunset, and 1st Rabi' al-thani had already begun but 16th January, the corresponding day in conversion programs, had not. Same will be true with the date of his death, but please ask me that when I've completed the translation. Curryfranke (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Now I've checked the death date too. 22nd January is Old Style as well. The exact date of Shah Jahan's death is not in his own chronicle (which I am translating), but in that of his successor "Alamgir" Aurangzeb. In the Ma’āsir-i ‘Ālamgīrī, the author notes in the chapter on Aurangzeb's seventh year of reign, i.e. 1076 of the Hijra:
"Early in the night of Monday the 26th Rajab, Shah Jahan succumbed to the disease and gave up the ghost."
Sāqī Musta‘idd Khān: Ma’āsir-i ‘Ālamgīrī, tr. Jadunath Sarkar, 2nd ed. Delhi 1986, p. 34.
26th Rajab 1076 AH gives 1st February 1666 AD New Style and 22nd January 1666 AD Old Style.
Date calculations can be done easily with the Swiss Calendar Converter, [5]
Greetings, Curryfranke (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Images from[edit] is on the blacklist[6] so images from it should not be used. See also the whitelist discussion|[7]

Graeme374 (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


Can anyone provide historically accurate sources which mention Shahjahan to have more than 4 wives?

 Đõc §aмέέЯ  08:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources I know (Qazvini, Lahori) rather suggest the opposite. Shah Jahan had three wives. He married "the well-starred girl of ... Muẓaffar Ḥusain Mīrzā Ṣafavī" (no name given) in October 1610, aged 17 (Qazvini fol. 44 b, my translation). Then he married Mumtaz Mahall on 10th May 1612 (New Style - Qazvini fol 48 b). Last, he married "the well-starred daughter of Shāhnavāz Khān" in September 1617 "on the order of His Majesty (Jahāngīr) Jannat-makānī to satisfy the mind of Khān Khānān and render him devoted" (Qazvini fol. 71 b). There is no mention of a marriage after that. Note also that only Mumtaz's name is given, and only she is showered with epithets like "The Second Mary" or "The holy character of angelic conduct" (Qazvini 42 a). The other wives are not mentioned any more after their marriage.
I'll have to read the chapter on Shah Jahan's manners and daily schedule again, think I found that Shah Jahan claimed to be chaste after Mumtaz's death. But I'd need more time than I have at the moment for wrestling with the warble and chimes of sentence garble and inner rhymes in 17th century Persian. Greetings, Curryfranke (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Nur Jahan[edit]

...says nothing about the woman. It tells of how Jahan became closer to his father. Either change the section title or put something in there about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:779A:FC0:9E5:D63A:33BC:5B1F (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)