Messages

[a different angle]

Bro.Joseph Islam, Salaam!

Considering your comments in a different angle, I must admit here that you have succeeded to make some valid points.  However I still believe the points are still not clear.   Since you have differences of opinion regarding hands of Allah / face of Allah as examples of mutashabihat,  let me state another two verses (Yousuf Ali translation);

(Allah) Most Gracious is firmly established on the throne (of authority) (20:5)

He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne was over the waters (11:7)

These two are certainly mutashabihat verses and I am sure you will not disagree with me.  We all know it is the literal interpretation of these verses that causes Fitna as clear form our books of traditions containing many fairy tales related to these verses, however, a person who is rasikuhuna fi-l'ilmi can form an idea and intended meanig of the verses, using intellect and cross checking different verses in Quran.   If seeking interpretation and trying to grasp the hidden meaning of such verses is prohibited, as you seemed to sugest in your comments, I believe even you post explaining the probable meaning of throne in this link is not allowed. http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=495.0 

I do not know if you have written any article on "His Throne was over the waters", however I believe, here also a person who is rasikuhuna fi-l'ilmi can form idea about what does it mean by using intellect and linking the same with other verses like, 'We made from water every living thing (21:30); Allah has created every animal from water (24:45), etc.  I am not quoting here the corruptions that have crept into our books of traditions due to literal interpreation of Allah's Throne being over the waters.

Mutashabihat verses :  Are we supposed not to pursue?

Bro.Joseph Islam, I noticed you mentioning at a few places with strong argument that according to Quran Mutashabihat verses shall not be pursued.  Again I think you are discussing the point in a different angle.   Let me discuss the point in a different angle.

In verse 2:26 it is said that Allah explains certain things through minor similitude's, even that of a mosquito.  It is further mentioned in the verse that the unbelievers react to this saying 'what is this similitude?' And it is strongly implied in the verse that the believers reach the truth by thinking and reflection.   Does it mean that, since it is the character of unbelievers to ask a question "what is this similitude" no one should contemplate or try to understand the meaning?  I believe it is not the positive question earnestly seeking to understand the intended meaning that is prohibited here, but asking questions with an intention to cause fitna without the intention to learn.   I believe it is the same concern that is expressed in 074:031 (part) "...and the disbelievers and those in whose hearts is a disease may say "What does God intend by this example (Arabic: mathalan)?"   It is not a positive question that they ask. They ask the question to create fitna without any earnest interest to now the real meaning.  We all know Quran at several places encourage us to think and contemplate over the verses of the Quran and one of the qualities of Muslims is even mentioned as those who do not blindly fall upon the verses deaf dumb.

"God propounds parables الْأَمْثَالَ* unto men, so that they might bethink themselves [of the truth]" (14:25) also 24:35  (*Note the same word mathalan used in 74:31)

THUS, INDEED, have We propounded unto men all kinds of parables in this Qur'ān, so that they might bethink themselves   مِنْ كُلِّ مَثَلٍ (39:27) Also (17:89, 18:54; 30:58; 47:3)

And [all] such parables الْأَمْثَالُ We propound unto men, so that they might [learn to] think (59:21).

You might raise again a point again here.  How come Quran says 3:7, (I quote in part translated by Muhammed Asad), "Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion, and seeking [to arrive at] its final meaning [in an arbitrary manner]...."

I think the problem highlighted here is people who have زَيْغٌ in their heart seeking interpretation (تَأْوِيلِهِ  وَابْتِغَاءَ) such verses, not seeking interpretation by الْعِلْمِ فِي وَالرَّاسِخُونَ.  It is said at another place in Quran "Valamma zaahu Azzahallahu quloobuhum" meaning when they turned away; Allah turned their hearts away from the truth.  (People who follow secondary sources as truth an example).  People who have زَيْغٌ in their heart can be also ordinary people who have no proper knowledge about different aspects and teachings of the Quran. If such people start to interpret those verses it will be fitna for sure.  One may ask how come الْفِتْنَةِ ابْتِغَاءَ is applicable here.  I think it need not necessarily mean a deliberate intention to cause Fitna.  Only a kaafir or a hypocrite will deliberately intend to create a Fitna as such.  The fact is that someone is mislead by someone cannot be raised as an excuse from responsibility and therefore الْفِتْنَةِ ابْتِغَاءَ will be applicable even though there is no deliberate intention.  That is why on the Day of Judgment when the mislead will say to Allah to give double punishment for those who caused them to mislead, the response from Allah would be that everyone will have double punishment, one for doing wrong and the other for misleading those who came after them!

Assuming your explanation, pursuing mutashabihat verses is prohibited according to Quran is true, it will create another issue.  It will create a need to have a list of mutashabihat verses to avoid committing a wrong and disobeying Allah's command.   Is there any list mutashabihat verses as such?

Mutashabihat : Number 19

There is only one point I want to make here.  Even you have mentioned in your explanation, I quote "There is no other purpose advanced, in that it either represents a code of any particular kind, or instructs believers to search for the number's significance and hidden meaning".  Even in your statement it is implied that, may be at a future time the mystery of this code might be revealed.  Let us just ignore Rashad, someone who claimed messenger-ship, who created doubts about two verses, who created a cult in Islam obsessed with number 19 whereby knowingly or unknowingly trying to make people away from the real teachings of the Quran.  One thing is for sure, the mystery of this code is something which can further strengthen the convinction of the believers as mentioned in 74:31, may be someone who is rasikuhuna fi-l'ilmi will find the mystery of this code at some other stage in future.

[Assalamu alai'kum]

Assalamu alai'kum
I came across the following question and answer and I have couple of questions.

Salam alaykum Joseph,

I had a couple questions on 3:7

Verse 7. He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

1.  Some believe that the verse says...."but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge.  They say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

So some say the sentence ends at the end of "and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge."

I personally feel that the Qur'an left some ambiguity because those grounded in knowledge will grasp much of the allegorical verses (wheras many of those not with knowlede will not) but they may not grasp all the verses with the allegorical meaning and they may not grasp the full profundities of meanings and multiplicities of meanings as of course God can.

2.  "But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its..."

I understand why it is perverse to seek discord but is not searching for hidden meanings good so we can ponder on the Qur'an as other verse tell us to do so?

Maybe the criticism is only on "seeking discord" part but "searching for hidden meanings" is still attached to it as a conjunction.....how do you interpret it?

Reply From Bro. Joseph Islam:

Salamun Alaikum.

I have shared my humble perspective in parts.

The Recitation:

The Quran is a 'mutawwatir' (with majority consensus) reading and secondly a text. Both have worked in tandem to protect the authenticity of the Quran. (recitation + codex). Any codex text of the Quran must always be understood in light of the Quran's mutawwatir recitation.

The main drive of verse 3:7 is to cement a believer's approach to the Quran which is to focus on the fundamental over the allegorical, clear over the unclear, substance over the symbolic, explicit over the implicit, and greater over the lesser.  Similarly, no lesser reading can ever supersede a majority reading.

The majority reading of 3:7 without doubt, accepts the pause separating it from 'wa-rasikuhuna fi-l'ilmi' (And those firm in knowledge)

Grasping Profundities:

I think there is a crucial difference in the 'tadabbur' (reflecting, studying, analysing) of clear verses of the Quran, reconciling them with other passages to 'grasp the full profundities' of its meaning, extracting 'hikmah' (wisdom) and applying them to our daily lives with that of 'searching the Quran for hidden meanings' and pursuing 'mutashibihaat'.

There is a difference.

The Quran calls itself 'clear bayyin', so the idea of pondering to extract hidden meanings does not even arise. Furthermore, the Quran clearly rebukes the approach without a proviso. I read the 'ib'tigha 'lfitna' (seeking discord) as a confirmation of a condition along with 'ibtighaa tawilihi' (seeking its interpretation) not a proviso. As with 74:31, there is a disease in the heart (fi qulubihim maradun) which makes them take this approach.

In my humble opinion, such an approach to seek hidden meanings and to justify it from the Quran is usually concocted by those that largely have a theological axe to grind to support esoteric knowledge and twist clear verses of the Quran to support a particular theological bias.

I hope that helps, God willing.

Regards,
Joseph.

Dear Bro.Joseph Islam,

With full respect to your comments, I have some questions.  It seems to me there are some points needed to be verified and the truth is somewhere in the middle, not very clear cut.  The reasons;

1. You have mentioned "Quran is a 'mutawwatir' (with majority consensus) reading".  I am unsure if it is appropriate to say majority understanding must be accepted as final – unless it is proved linguistically and grammatically that it is incorrect to say "no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge".  Even you have rejected traditional majority view when you interpreted - with very convincing proof - the word "seven" mentioned in "seven oft repeated verses", is not actually "seven" but "several".   So this point needs a further clarification and confirmation from you.

2. I understand your comments regarding 'grasping the full profundities' and also your comment Quran calls itself 'clear bayyin'.   However, I prefer to get a clarification for the verse using an example.   Let me state an example of a 'mutashibihaat' verse and I look forward to your analysis based on your explanation of the verse.  It is clear that the words like "hands of Allah" and "face of Allah" are 'mutashibihaat' verses.  I hope you do not have a different opinion on this point.  Here, we can safely assume that those who have firm knowledge (rasikuhuna fi-l'ilmi') will desist from giving literal interpretation for such verses, however, people who do not follow a correct approach (like those who follow secondary sources to explain the Quran and people who have lost focus on Quran, etc) likely to take these 'mutashibihaat' verses and interpret them in the literal sense.  It is a big fitna to give literal meaning for these verses.   Don't you think this is what is strongly condemned in the verse?  One important point to note in this verse is the term 'wa-rasikuhuna fi-l'ilmi'.  Is it supposed that only 'wa-rasikuhuna fi-l'ilmi' to say "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord"?  Allah could have given a clear instruction for all the believers to say "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord" without searching the hidden meaning of the  'mutashibihaat' verses! 

Can you explain your understanding through the example of  'mutashibihaat' verses "hands of Allah" and "face of Allah" in Quran?   The choices of words in verse 3:7 seem very mysterious to me.  I feel like it can be interpreted in both ways with a stronger possibility of what I have stated (Allahu ahlam). 

Salaam!

ARE THERE SEVEN HEAVENS OR SEVERAL HEAVENS?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/are%20there%20seven%20heavens%20or%20several%20heavens%20FM3.htm

THE SEVEN OFT-REPEATED
http://quransmessage.com/articles/oft-repeated%20FM3.htm 
FINAL THOUGHTS
The term 'saba' (7) in the Arabic language can also denote a multiplicity. In verse 15:87 where the term 'saba'an minal-mathani' is encountered, a possible more consistent rendering 'several of the oft-repeated' was argued for. If viewed in this context, the verse could then arguably be considered as a reference to its core teachings which are repeated throughout the Quran in various ways. This would also be consistent with verse 39:23

Salaam!

Bro. Joseph Islam, I happened to read your above two posts.   Wonderful explanations!!   What is normally translated as "seven oft repeated" was always a mystery for me.  Earlier I had verified almost all the Quran translations and all translators were linking it with sura fathiha, except Parwez who "translated"  15:87 as "We have given to you directives in the magnificent Quran, and annals of history which repeats itself, in support thereof (39:23)".  I cross check with Parwez since he is the only translator I know who does not rely on secondary sources to translate Quran, even though he does not go for word by word translation due to his own reasoning that meaning will be lost (many of the verses can not be understood) if  word by word translation is given.   I had at that time actually ignored his comment "annals of history which repeats itself" since I thought Parwez is going beyond the meaning of the verse and I had no clue why he is making such an interpretation.  You have done good effort to bring the correct meaning.  The usage of "seven" is in line with what we normally say "across seven seas" to mean several seas, not exact number 7.  I am curious to know whether you have translated/ or if you have any plan to translate the Quran since almost all available translations are based on secondary sources.   According to me, it is a serious case that all translators have failed to get the intended meaning of verse 15:87.

[does not forbid]

-God does not forbid slavery.

The Quran directed the Muslims to set free the prisoners of war either as a favour or against some ransom (47:4); No other option is given.

Islamist, the link I'm making is rational and perfectly valid.

I hope you will agree M. Asad did not imply any such thing as Solomon was a mythical/ imaginary character.  He was pointing out "poetic legends which were associated with his name" and "legendary accounts of Solomon's wisdom and magic powers" and how these were a cultural reality for the people and how Quran uses such or similar accounts to show that God is the ultimate source of all human power and glory and to teach people some ethical truths.  This is what I understood from his note.  You seem to go beyond what he has stated.  His was providing a note for 21:81 "There were some that dived for him [into the sea] and performed other works besides: but it was We who kept watch over them"

Salaam Hope!

I found the reference Peaceful is talking about;

(21:81 M.Asad Translation) "And among the rebellious forces [which We made subservient to him]76 there were some that dived for him [into the sea] and performed other works besides: but it was We who kept watch over them.77"

76 My rendering, in this particular context, of shayatan (lit., "satans") as "rebellious forces" is based on the tropical use of the term shaytan in the sense of anything "rebellious", "inordinately proud" or "insolent" (cf. Lane IV, 1552) - in this case, possibly a reference to subdued and enslaved enemies or, more probably, to "rebellious" forces of nature which Solomon was able to tame and utilize; however, see also next note.

77 In this as well as in several other passages relating to Solomon, the Qur'an alludes to the many poetic legends which were associated with his name since early antiquity and had become part and parcel of Judaeo-Christian and Arabian lore long before the advent of Islam. Although it is undoubtedly possible to interpret such passages in a "rationalistic" manner, I do not think that this is really necessary. Because they were so deeply ingrained in the imagination of the people to whom the Qur'an addressed itself in the first instance, these legendary accounts of Solomon's wisdom and magic powers had acquired a cultural reality of their own and were, therefore, eminently suited to serve as a medium for the parabolic exposition of certain ethical truths with which this book is concerned: and so, without denying or confirming their mythical character, the Qur'an uses them as a foil for the idea that God is the ultimate source of all human power and glory, and that all achievements of human ingenuity, even though they may sometimes border on the miraculous, are but an expression of His transcendental creativity.

It is really unfair to link this statement with 8:31

[حَرَّمَ]

Is he supposed to be a Kafir for rejecting the literal meaning of the verses(i.e. historicity)

It is a very harsh question! This was the tool used by those who cling to 'traditions' to prevent logical/critical analysis in Islam.

In verse 2:26 Allah states  the possibility of using simile even that of a mosquito (to convey certain facts).   Therefore illustrations using insignificant things as gnats, spiders, ants, birds, bees are possible.   The word "kursi' (chair) has been used in 2:55 figuratively as a symbol of power and authority.  In the narration of Ant (speaking, thinking, understanding,  recognizing facts, evaluating circumstances, acting like a human being)  in the story of Solomon,  may be the purpose was to convey the power of  Solomon's army in relation to the people residing in the valley (Allahu Ahlam!).   I am not sure how strong is the argument, since one word/term in used in one sense at all verses it has to be with the same meaning at any given place, especially considering certain circumstantial facts (like an ant acting like a human being) and also 2:26.

I would like to state something - may not have very direct connection for examples like "bird".  Recently someone was pointing out to me 6:151 قُلْ تَعَالَوْا أَتْلُ مَا حَرَّمَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ , and if we take the normal meaning provided in Quran for حَرَّمَ as forbidden, it will confuse the whole instructions contained in the verse, for instance, the first instruction mentioned in the verse is, 'Do not associate anyone with Allah'.  It would mean 'Do not associate anyone with Allah' is forbidden!  So, it seems to me, we have to give appropriate contextual meanings, without just looking into the meaning of the word/ term in other places (certainly it is required to be analysed - but it should not be the only justification), to appreciate Quranic truth. 

Can you clarify what you mean by point 2:

I believe the decision of the majority to make/construct/'take to ourselves' a mosque "عَلَيْهِمْ" (over them) can not be regarded as an Islamic act since the focus is on honoring the youth لَنَتَّخِذَنَّ عَلَيْهِمْ مَسْجِدًا

O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith. (5:101-102) - Yousef Ali Translation

Shalom / Peace

I did a search on verse 2.187 on this forum and I find brother Joseph Islam's response on this quite convincing with the problem raised.

I think if the role of the mosque is understood properly (as brother JI explains) then there isn't a problem in interpretation I feel.

Please see >>>

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=274.msg848;topicseen#msg848

Good! Some points are clarified.  However, at the least in case of Masjid ul Haram,  it seems, the term "Masjid" has a wider connotation rather than just a building or structure, primarily because its role includes (as JI pointed out); a place of return (mathabatan), a place of security (aman),  a place of stay (to be resident (akifina) and a place of worship! -  and especially (quoting 22:25) its role "We have made (open) to (all) men - equal is the dweller there / inhabitant (Arabic: akifu) and the visitor from the country (which country?)".  I prefer Muhammad Asad translation here as 'those who dwell there and those who come from abroad'.  It is clear a distinction is made between dwellers/ residents in Masjid ul Haram and the visitors (from all countries including its surrounding places) – we can't expect people permanently residing/ dwelling with their families inside Masjid ul Haram (in the sense of a building/ stucture) and dwellers/ residents cannot be said to be temporarily residing there as 'visitors' due to visitors issue is separately mentioned.  Allahu Ahlam

#####

2:187 Lawful for you nights (of) the abstinence is sexual approach* to your women, they are a garment for you and you are a garment for them. God knows that you used to betray/deceive yourselves so He turned towards you and He forgave you; so now approach** them and seek what God has decreed/written for you. And eat and drink until becomes distinct the white thread from the black thread, of dawn. Then you shall complete the abstinence until the night, and do not approach** them while you are devoting/cleaving in the maSaJiD. These are God's boundaries, so do not transgress them. It is thus that God makes His revelations clear to the people that they may be righteous/God-concious.
*Arabic: RaFaTh (root: Ra-Fa-Tha)
**Arabic: BaShiR (root: Ba-Shin-Ra)

IF one takes masajid=mosques then if women were not allowed in them, it would make this statement illogical, thus clearly implying women could be present in the mosques. It also implies men and women are unlikely to be segregated, as they could approach one another, i.e. interact.
    Who in their right mind would approach their wife in a sexual manner in a public Mosque? Was this such a temptation or common practice that AQ had to tell them not to do it? According to history/tradition mosques in those early days were very basic or simply courtyards thus unlikely to have multiple rooms so it seems even more odd to suggest such a thing taking place in a Mosque. This traditional understanding verges on the nonsensical.
    IF masajids=mosques, why even mention mosques, when there is much greater chance of sexual temptation in the homes during abstinence? The traditional commentators attempt an explanation for this, e.g Jalalayn/Ibn Kathir say this is referring to 'itikaf' (spiritual retreat in the mosque) when believers would leave the mosque for sex then return, when they are meant to reside at the mosque for a certain number of days. This is a complete insertion of course, and hardly "clear" as it implies at the end of the verse, and the obvious error as it says "...WHILE YOU are devoting/cleaving IN the masajid" not when one leaves them. So, it would seem they interpret it as "...while you are staying in the masajid (for itikaf)...".
    If it did mean 'itikaf' then this is not explained elsewhere in AQ, e.g. how many days, what does it involve, why, is it obligatory, examples of anyone actually doing it etc. If we are relying upon AQ only for our understanding of this verse, then 'itikaf' must be rejected outright. The consequence of this however, is that it renders the understanding of masajid=mosques illogical, or at least very unusual.
    Another explanation put forth for this verse is that sexual approach to your women is permitted in the nights of the abstinence but not when one is staying in the mosques, e.g. The Sacred Mosque (in Mecca). Not for "itikaf" per se but simply a spiritual/devotional retreat there, e.g. travellers to The Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) may have come from afar and thus set up tents there, and this verse is referring to them (a verse cited to support this notion of "residency/staying" is 22:25). Not that I necessarily agree with this explanation, but it is at least more plausible than the Traditional explanation, which advocates a specific practice of "itikaf" rather than an undefined one. It is debatable whether the word "akif" means "reside/stay" according to Quran usage, but in any case people staying-over in the mosque seems odd/impractical if one takes "tawaf" as "circumambulation" for example, and the "hadiy" (gifts/offerings) are also to be taken to such a venue. It could make "circumambulation" rather awkward, and if many residents/gifts/animals, perhaps impossible.

Salaam!

I am not interfering in this discussion between two very learned brothers.  But would like to make some comments in just one post.  Brother waqas,  I had a quick look through your points; hope to go in detail at some other stage.  You seem to have done lot of homework.  Some of your points make really good sense, but some are not as such.  I agree there may be some valid points in your claim of 'theoretical  possibility of the meanings' you have stated, however, according to me, in majority of cases,  Masjid has an implication of a "structure" as JI has pointed out.  May be at some places like 2:187 there is possibility it can have a different connotation and your study might be relevant.   

One point I must admit here.  I have heard and read verse 2:187 hundreds of times, but you made me to have a close look at this verse (many thanks to you).  I was checking, particularly this verse, how different translators have translated, and I agree with you a traditional understanding does not make sense and going through different translations we can notice some sort of difficulty the translators faced while interpreting the verse;

But do not have sexual intercourse with them/ associate with wives/ touch them not/ do not go into them/ but do not lie with them skin to skin/ do not have contact with them;

while you are in retreat in the mosques – Yousuf Ali / touch them not, but be at your devotions in the mosques – Pickthall / when you are about to abide in meditation in houses of worship - Mohamed Asad /  while you keep to the mosques – Shakkir / while you remain in the Mosques for devotion – Sher Ali/ when you have decided to stay in the mosques for assiduous devotion/ while you dwell in confinement in the mosques/ while you perform I`tikaf (- while you are secluding in the mosque for prayer and devotion to God) / while you are consecrating yourselves in the mosques/ as long as you are staying for worship in the mosques/ during I'htikaf (retreat in the mosques in last ten days of Ramadhan), etc

One odd explanation, not verbal translation as such, I found was from Parwez who has 'explained' the verse as follows, "From dawn to dusk you are required to fast. If after dusk you are detained at your centre (of training or activity e.g. Masjid) in order to ponder or resolve some important issue or problem, then you should devote your total attention to the task in hand and refrain from going home"!!  This 'explanation' not actually justifying the verbal meaning as such, however there is possibility that it could be the intended meaning of the verse.  Allahu Ahlam!

Also I have a few comments (critical) for your following statements
 

Firstly, they imply a physical building was built (worse still, a Mosque) over them (i.e. their graves), as some sort of shrine in their memory, which is completely against the message of The Quran (i.e. no saint/human reverence). Some commentators do not distinguish whether this was a good or bad thing, i.e. do not clarify who "prevailed" in the dispute, the right view or wrong view. The flow and logic of the verse would imply those who prevailed were in the right, otherwise there would be little point ending on this note. It seems most commentators have this view also.

I do not think the flow and logic of the verse would imply those who prevailed were in the right due to; (1) The Quran is  making a point here about the people who came after them getting involved in unnecessary disputes; (2) Building a place of worship over graves/ or at any place in memmory of any human being cannot be an Islamic act.  So there is no question of majority being right.

Secondly, it clearly states there is a dispute and some said "build a building over/upon them" yet it later says those who prevailed said "surely we will take (to ourselves) a maSJD over/upon them" clearly implying there must be a significant difference between each side's position. If traditionally understood, the only difference is one argues for a building, the other argues for a Mosque. What kind of building would have been built by the former side? It would most likely be a communal building, i.e. a Mosque-type building, thus trying to determine the difference in their arguments is difficult going by the traditional understanding.

I think the significant difference between each side's positions is very clear since one group is for a monument without being a place of worship and the other group for a place of worship.

Thirdly, the former expression uses "build a building..." and the latter uses "take (to ourselves) a maSJD...", as if they were both about building why not use the same word? Not to mention "take to ourselves (a building)" doesn't quite make sense, as it implies a pre-existing thing.

Again, the first expression is just to build building without being a place of worship.  Also, even admitting your argument that it is a pre-existing thing, one thing you can not deny that the building was constructed only at a later stage after their story became known to others (since it is masjid 'over them').  It could be that majority wanted to convert a pre-existing building over their grave into a place of worship! May be (Allahu Ahlam)

God does not burden any human being with more than he is well able to bear 2:286

Salaaam!  You have concluded the article very nicely as "Practices that are not sanctioned by the Quran but are legitimised as having a religious connotation must be seriously questioned in light of God's scripture. Kissing the Black Stone or showing any form of veneration to it is no different"

You are right Umar should have questioned the Prophet.  If he didn't why do we expect a pilgrim to question it.  It is good enough for him if the Prophet has done it.

You understood my point differently! 

What I meant was this.  The hadees (in which second khalifa Umar is reported to have said he was kissing the stone because he  had seen prophet doing so) can not be true because if Khalifa Umar had actually seen prophet kissing the stone, he would have verified the reason for doing so from the prophet himself or those around him at the same time! 

Salaam Sardar,

You are right brother, kissing the stone is because the Prophet did so and it is based on a hadith ; otherwise the stone has no devotional significance at all.  It is Allah's right hand on earth,  is also based on a hadith yet I find this explanation more plausible and the way Shariati describes it in his book is very inspiring.  I highly recommend this book to you.  You can also read it online.

http://www.al-islam.org/hajj/shariati/ 

Hope, salaam alaikum,

Shariati is an amazing writer.  I like his writings.  But no stone can get any  reverence from others in Islam, be it from anywhere, including 'Heaven'

Say: "Not equal are things that are bad and things that are good, even though the abundance of the bad may dazzle thee; so fear Allah, O ye that understand; that (so) ye may prosper." (5:100)

Satan made their (sinful) acts seem alluring to them (8:48)

It is difficult to believe second khalifa Umar did not care to ask prophet the reason for kissing the stone when he is reported to have seen (as reported in the hadees) prophet kissing the stone/ or to verify the reason from those who know at the time of this incident!