Jinn of Current Events

Jabir ibn Haiyan (aka Geber) is claimed by some historians of science, such as George Sarton, and many Islamophiles to be the father of alchemy (claimed root: al-kimyia in Arabic) and the inventor of the alembic around 800 AD.

There is a problem with this account, though. "Chemeia" was the ancient Greek word (meaning "Egypt" or "preparation/land of the black soil") related to that field of activity several centuries before Islam was invented. The process of distillation was discovered even longer ago. Alembic distillation is a very old technique, used by the Egyptians 3000 years BC and the Greeks 1000 BC. In 296 AD the emperor Diocletian, fearing that creation of gold would disrupt his economy, ordered the burning of alchemist manuscripts. In the 4th century, Zosimus of Panopolis wrote "The Divine Art of Making Gold and Silver." Much later, in the 7th century, alchemy was picked up by the Arabs when they conquered Egypt and Syria. "Ambix" is a Greek word meaning vase with a small opening, which was part of their distillation equipment. The Arabs changed the words "chemeia" to "kimyia" as well as "ambix" to "ambic" and called the distillation equipment "al ambic" (the vase).

Here we go again, discovering a tale of conquest and appropriation. It is wrong to claim that ibn Haiyan invented alchemy and the alembic. He did compile, describe, and practice various chemical processes, but he is not the founder of chemistry or alchemy by any stretch of the imagination. 

I first heard the hypothesis that the Taj Mahal is an old Hindu temple taken over by Muslim rulers while I was visiting Lucknow (India) a couple of years ago.

Here's a scholarly paper: The Question of The Taj Mahal and additional information:

• Was The Taj Mahal a Vedic Temple?
• 103 points of evidence that the Taj Mahal was originally a vedic temple-palace (The Koran and The Kafir)
• 108 proofs that the Tejo Mahalaya was a shiva temple-palace

It's not conclusive proof, but pretty close, and I haven't seen any (Muslim) refutation of these arguments (name-calling yes, but refutation no). The non-alignment with Mecca and presence of Hindu symbols completely taboo in Islam are enough to question the Muslim tale. It wouldn't be the first or only case of Muslim conquest and claim that they created something which they actually appropriated or copied from others.