Re: Are tombs permitted?
True. Islamic history as we know it, is evident through the physical remains, and mausoleums of our past. No "living" monuments from day 1 would have meant that our very religion is suspicious, without any proof. Its not about creating tombs, its about keeping your tahzeeb and history alive.
But that is precisely it... the truth is the truth. you do not need monuments to substantiate the oneness of God. You do not need tombs to show people the truth in The Message.
But I understand the Sectarian obscession to live in the past. If you want to keep the tombs as a record of what happened, that is fine IMO. However, if you need to keep the tombs to prove to the world that Islam is true, then I would consider the matter suspect. Why does a divine message need proof of its messenger: Isn't the message sufficient? Why did people believe the prophet? Just because he said so, or did the message actually make sense? Please do not reiterate the story of Sadiq and Ameen, for if that were relevant, everyone one have believed or given in to him in the first go.
What proof do you have that Adam existed, other than the mention of him in Semitic codexes? I for one think it is an allegory for Edom (also called Uth, and transliterated in Arabic as 'Aad from Nabataean stories, and Aadam from biblical ones)... Many such things are given in the scriptures as allegories because the characters themselves are not important, but rather the underlying message: Bow to nothing but the True Creater and be good to each other and do not violate anyone's God-given right to live out their lives in peace and harmony.