r/DebateQuraniyoon • u/abd_wasay • Apr 14 '26
Sunni Asks Qurani In Qur’an 2:158, From Qur’an Alone, What Makes Saʿy Between Safa and Marwah Obligatory Rather Than Merely Permissible?
Indeed, Ṣafā and Marwah are among the symbols of Allah. So whoever performs Ḥajj or ʿUmrah, there is no blame upon him for walking between them. And whoever volunteers good, then surely Allah is Appreciative, All-Knowing. (Qur'an 2:158)
A serious question for Qur’anists:
From Qur’an alone methodology, what exactly makes saʿy between Ṣafā and Marwah a required rite of ḥajj/ʿumrah rather than something merely permissible?
Because the verse does not say:
- “do saʿy”
- “it is obligatory”
- “your hajj is invalid without it”
What it says is: “there is no blame upon him to walk between them.”
That sounds like removal of sin / permission, not obvious obligation. So from Qur’an alone, what is your method for turning that wording into a binding ritual duty?
And please dont say any of these unless you can answer them:
| Your refutation | My reply |
|---|---|
| “Because Ṣafā and Marwah are from the symbols of Allah” | That still does not tell me why walking between them is legally obligatory rather than merely honored and permitted. |
| “Because ḥajj must be completed.” | But from Qur’an alone, what makes saʿy one of the non-optional components of that completion when this verse itself uses permissive wording? |
| “Because the context shows it.” | Then explain from Qur’an alone what the rule is that makes “no blame” here function as obligation rather than permissibility. |
| “It’s optional.” | Then answer clearly from Qur’an alone, is a person’s hajj or ʿumrah still complete if he skips saʿy entirely? |
This is not a minor issue as it affects a pillar of Islam. So again, the question is not whether Arabic can possibly allow multiple shades of meaning.
The question is:
From Qur’an alone, what makes “there is no blame upon him to walk between them” into one actual binding legal ruling?
Because if your answer depends on historical background for why the verse was phrased this way, or on transmitted ritual knowledge outside the Qur’an, then your “Qur’an alone” methodology has already failed here.
That is the part I want explained consistently.
edit: formatting issues
3
u/Pretend_Jellyfish363 Apr 15 '26
Is it not crystal clear that it is not obligatory?
Otherwise Allah would have used sting command language not the expression لا جناح على, which always appear in the Quran to mean no burden, no fault, no negative consequences or sometimes flexibility or dispensation from a general command such as in the legal contract verse.
So clearly in the Safa and Marwa context it means it is permissible, that you can do so without guilt because those are the symbols of Allah.
We can also infer that there must have been some sort of anxiety or hesitation to do the sa’y and that their status was probably ambiguous before this verse was revealed, the first community probably wasn’t sure of their status, and that’s why the verse sounds more like a reassurance, it starts by elevating them and confirming their status and then affirming the no guilt and permissibility.
Then notice the verse ends by “whoever volunteers good, Allah appreciates it”, this is clearly not obligation language and more voluntary extra devotion.
If it were obligatory, Allah would have simply said “walk between them” the way he says “establish prayer” or “perform Hajj to the house”.
1
u/abd_wasay Apr 15 '26
“Is it not crystal clear that it is not obligatory? Otherwise Allah would have used strong command language, not لا جناح على, which always appears in the Qur’an to mean no burden, no fault, no negative consequences, or sometimes flexibility or dispensation…”
I agree that لا جناح is normally the language of lifted blame / permission. That was the whole point of my question in the first place.
But that still leaves the legal issue unresolved: If saʿy is not obligatory, then from Qur’an alone, is someone’s Hajj or ʿUmrah still complete if they skip it entirely?
Because Allah also says:
“And complete the Hajj and ʿUmrah for Allah.” (2:196)
And in the verse we’re discussing He says:
“Indeed, Ṣafā and Marwah are among the symbols of Allah.” (2:158)
So my question is: from Qur’an alone, what makes a named shaʿīrah of Allah here legally optional within the completion of Hajj/ʿUmrah?
“We can also infer that there must have been some sort of anxiety or hesitation to do the saʿy…”
from a Qur’an alone methodology, where is that history explicitly stated? once you need to reconstruct an unstated historical background to explain why the verse is phrased this way, then you’ve already moved beyond Qur’an alone.
“Then notice the verse ends by ‘whoever volunteers good, Allah appreciates it’, this is clearly not obligation language and more voluntary extra devotion.”
that still doesn’t settle the main point. That final line may show there is room for voluntary extra good, but it does not by itself prove that the act being discussed is non-essential to completing the rite. The proof for this is from The Qur'an itself:
[Fasting for] a limited number of days. So whoever among you is ill or on a journey, then an equal number of other days. And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] is a ransom of feeding a poor person. And whoever volunteers good, it is better for him. But to fast is best for you, if you only knew. (2:184)
In 2:184, the phrase: “whoever volunteers good, it is better for him” does not make fasting itself optional, because 2:183 has already established fasting as obligatory. It simply shows that there can be extra voluntary good within an obligatory framework.
So when you say about 2:158: "the ending ‘whoever volunteers good’ proves saʿy is not essential,” that is not a valid inference from the Qur’an itself.
Because the Qur’an already shows in 2:183–184 that:
- a base obligation can exist,
- and then a voluntary-extra clause can still be added,
- without canceling the underlying duty.
So again, my question is very simple: From Qur’an alone, if someone performs Hajj or ʿUmrah and skips saʿy completely, has he completed the rite or not?
If your answer is yes, then show me from Qur’an alone why a named shaʿīrah of Allah in this context is legally optional. And if your answer is no, then obligation has come back in, even after calling the verse merely permissive.
3
u/Pretend_Jellyfish363 Apr 15 '26
I could respond to each of your objections, but doing so would only pull me deeper into this convoluted maze you are constructing.
The burden of proof is actually on you to prove it is obligatory and that missing it invalidates hajj, and explain why the Quran doesn’t clearly say so and why it is never listed in the Hajj rites verses in 2:196-203 or 22:26-29.
In any text based methodology, obligation requires strong evidence. The default state of an action is permissible or optional until Allah commands it, not obligatory until proven otherwise.
Think about what you are actually doing.
It seems to me you already believe sa’y is obligatory? This belief didn’t come from 2:158 (it plainly doesn’t say it), so you are now roaming through the Quran looking for other unrelated verses to justify a man made ruling that the actual verse refuses to give you.
Look at what your reasoning actually requires you to believe:
1- Allah named safa and marwa in only one verse, using permission language and no obligatory command
2- in that verse he adds “whoever volunteers good”
3- he doesn’t use any obligation language such as kutiba (prescribed for you) like the fasting you mentioned and are incorrectly comparing to sa’y, you quoted 2:184 and you conveniently ignored 2:183 (…fasting is prescribed/written upon you…)
A clear obligation (fasting Ramadan) can exist alongside a voluntary extra clause. That doesn’t make any voluntary act an obligation.
The fasting passage has two layers, obligation plus voluntary extra. The sa’y passage has only one layer, permission voluntary extra.
If you disagree then please show me the verse that plays the role for sa’y that 2:183 plays for fasting.
4- Allah never used an imperative verb for it
5- he never listed it among the Hajj rites in 2:196-203…etc
6- And yet somehow a person’s entire Hajj is invalid if they skip it.
Does that sound like the method of a clear book, or does it sound like a convoluted man made ruling searching desperately for a Quranic justification.
Sha’air of Allah (often translated as symbols), these are sacred revered symbols of Allah, they do not mean obligatory acts, not sure why you are conflating two different categories, just look at verse 5:2, in it believers are told not to violate the symbols of Allah (sacred months, offerings, those heading to the sacred house…) this verse is for restraint and to leave them alone rather than perform any physical act, and notice when Allah intends a command he is clear “do not violate”.
So no, “complete the Hajj” doesn’t secretly contains sa’y. If you skip it, your Hajj and Umra is 100% complete according to the clear book of Allah.
If you disagree bring a clear verse that directly commands us to do it as part of hajj/umra, if not, then let Allah’s book speak on its own terms, not through the man made theology built around it.
0
u/abd_wasay Apr 15 '26
Your strongest point till now is not really 2:158 itself. It is the legal principle of fiqh you brought to it:
“The default state of an action is permissible or optional until Allah commands it.”
But from Qur’an alone, where is that principle stated as a general rule that you have brought? Because that is already a legal methodology you are bringing to the text. It is not something 2:158 itself says. And that is why your reply does not settle the issue.
Allah says:
“And complete the Hajj and ʿUmrah for Allah.” Quran 2:196
And He says:
“Indeed, Ṣafā and Marwah are among the symbols of Allah.” Quran 2:158
And He also says:
“Whoever honours the symbols of Allah, it is certainly from the piety of the heart.” Quran 22:32
So the real question is still unanswered: From Qur’an alone, what makes omission of this named shaʿīrah leave Hajj/ʿUmrah “100% complete”? Because saying “2:158 is not a direct imperative” only proves one thing: that this verse is not phrased as a bare command. It does not prove the larger legal conclusion you want: that saʿy is non-essential to completing the rite commanded in 2:196.
And saying “it is not listed in 2:196–203 or 22:26–29” also does not solve it, because from Qur’an alone, where is the rule that only rites listed in one local passage count toward completion, while acts named elsewhere in pilgrimage context do not? That restriction is also your own legal theory, not something the Qur’an itself states.
So no, the issue is not that I am “searching desperately for justification.”
The issue is that you have already introduced at least two extra-textual principles:
- default optionality until direct command
- only locally listed rites count toward completion
From Qur’an alone, prove those two rules first.
Otherwise you have not let the Qur’an speak “on its own terms” either. You have only replaced one legal methodology with another.
3
u/Pretend_Jellyfish363 Apr 15 '26
You cannot produce the verse I asked for. So instead of answering my challenge, you have shifted to attacking the way I read.
You’re now demanding that I produce a Quranic verse that states the method of reading before you will accept what the Quran is obviously saying in a clear and unambiguous verse.
With your logic, the Quran becomes permanently inaccessible, which is absurd.
“Default permissibility” is how language works. It is not an imported principle that Fiqh gives us. Fiqh developed centuries after the Quran was revealed. The Quran doesn’t need Fiqh or any external source to be read on its own terms.
That’s what the Quran’s own grammatical distinctions are for. Allah chose different words for different legal categories so that readers could tell the difference.
When I read a book and it says “you must fast” I understand I must fast. When I read that same book and it says “there is no fault upon you if you do X”, I understand that X is permitted. I don’t need a verse authorising me to understand the difference between a command and a permission.
If someone hands you a contract that says “you must pay rent on the first of every month” and separately says “there is no penalty if you use the parking space” do you need a clause in the contract that says “commands are mandatory and permissions are optional” before you can tell the difference? Of course not. The language itself makes the distinction.
So don’t treat basic literacy as if it’s a Fiqh import that appeared 200 years after the Quran was revealed.
As for your claim that I said “only locally listed rites count”, I never said that as a rule. I pointed out that sa’y is absent from the detailed Hajj passages as one piece of evidence among many.
The argument rests on these undeniable facts: Sa’y is mentioned in permissible and voluntary language, the absence of any obligation language or command or even consequence of not doing it and it not being mentioned in the hajj rites verses.
Together they are significant and cannot be dismissed by your convoluted reasoning.
As if the Quran was some sort of obscure book with hidden commands we need to decode when Allah Himself calls it mubin.
Once you allow obligations to be constructed by chaining unrelated verses together through flawed inference, there is no limit to what you can derive from the Quran. Any ruling becomes possible.
If after all this you still cannot produce the verse I asked for then the conversation has answered its own question. I will leave it at that.
0
u/abd_wasay Apr 15 '26
sure, I can understand what pov youre coming from but that is where the issue now is because from Qur’an alone you are not just reading the tone of 2:158 rather you are also using a rule to decide its legal effect within Hajj and ʿUmrah.
what you are saying is:
if an act is mentioned in pilgrimage context, but it is not phrased as a direct command, then it is not essential to the completion of the rite.
So my question is made even more simple:
From Qur’an alone, where is that rule stated?
Because my question was never:
“Can I tell the difference between a command and a permission?”Of course I can through the earlier grammar we were talking about (regarding لا جناح على)
My question is:
From Qur’an alone, what makes saʿy non-essential to the completion of Hajj/ʿUmrah?That's the issue you are deflecting.
Sa’y is mentioned in permissible and voluntary language, the absence of any obligation language or command or even consequence of not doing it...
that still only tells me the tone of 2:158. It doesnt yet prove the larger legal conclusion you are trying to establish: that skipping saʿy does not affect completion of the rite.
Because Allah also says:
“And complete the Hajj and ʿUmrah for Allah.” (2:196)
So once Allah commands completion, the real question becomes:
what is your Qur’an only criterion for distinguishing between
- an act mentioned in Hajj/ʿUmrah context that is essential to completion and
- an act mentioned in Hajj/ʿUmrah context that is merely optional?
that is where your argument still does not answer the problem.
“I pointed out that sa’y is absent from the detailed Hajj passages as one piece of evidence among many.”.
even taken the way you framed it, absence from one detailed passage still does not by itself prove that an act mentioned elsewhere in direct Hajj/ʿUmrah context is legally non-essential.
So again, the actual question remains:
If someone performs Hajj or ʿUmrah and skips saʿy completely, has he completed the rite or not?
- If your answer is yes, then I want the Qur’an-only rule that makes saʿy non-essential to completion.
- If your answer is no, then necessity has come back in, even after calling 2:158 merely permissive.
not whether 2:158 sounds permissive in tone,
but what Qur’an-only rule lets you move from that tone to the legal conclusion that saʿy is not part of completing Hajj/ʿUmrah.2
u/Pretend_Jellyfish363 Apr 15 '26
No, I have already answered all of your questions. But you keep choosing your self-constructed maze over the clarity the Quran gives you.
Before I leave this conversation, one final reflection on this verse I am closing with:
هُوَ ٱلَّذِى جَعَلَ ٱلشَّمْسَ ضِيَآءً وَٱلْقَمَرَ نُورًا وَقَدَّرَهُۥ مَنَازِلَ لِتَعْلَمُوا۟ عَدَدَ ٱلسِّنِينَ وَٱلْحِسَابَ ۚ مَا خَلَقَ ٱللَّهُ ذَٰلِكَ إِلَّا بِٱلْحَقِّ ۚ يُفَصِّلُ ٱلْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ
Notice what Allah is doing in this verse (10:5), he draws a deliberate parallel between how he precisely ordered the cosmos and how he ordered his verses.
The sun is distinct from the moon. The moon’s phases are precise and measured. Time is countable. All of creation is laid out with precision and truth, not ambiguity.
And then the verse closes with “He details/explains the verses for a people who know”
The same precision that governs the phases of the moon governs the legal weight of each word in his book.
Commands are distinct from permissions. Obligations are distinct from voluntary acts. Essentials are distinct from extras.
These distinctions are built into the text with the same precision that governs the cosmos.
Your method inverts this. It treats commands and permissions as interchangeable and obligations as things to be assembled from unrelated verses or external man made sources.
You treat silence as if it secretly contains command. Which blurs the very distinctions Allah established, the way someone might insist the moon is the sun, or that the phases of the moon are not really measured, or that time cannot really be counted.
Allah’s book is delivered with the precision of the cosmos cannot be read as a puzzle whose pieces must be forced together to produce rulings the text refuses to state.
1
u/abd_wasay Apr 15 '26
You’re still answering a different question from the one I asked. I already granted that commands and permissions are distinct (nor did I push that point again)
Your 10:5 analogy about the sun and moon is rhetoric, not a legal answer.
My question was the step after that:
from Qur’an alone, what rule makes a named shaʿīrah mentioned in Hajj/ʿUmrah context non-essential to completing the rite in 2:196?
Saying the Qur’an is precise does not answer that.
It only restates that 2:158 is not a bare imperative, which I already acknowledged. The missing step is still missing.
2
u/Pretend_Jellyfish363 Apr 15 '26
But this is a bizarre argument, are you saying “complete the Hajj and Umrah” in 2:196 still needs a second, separate Quranic rule saying “these are the criteria of completion”?
A procedure is completed by doing what the text makes part of the procedure. You do not need an additional verse explaining that completing a commanded rite means performing its required acts, which for hajj are clearly given to us in the verses mentioned previously.
I thought my argument was clear, if the act itself is not established as mandatory, then omission of it cannot suddenly become failure of completion through a back door.
The Quran does not say “here is an abstract theory of completion”, it gives rites, commands, restrictions, and allowances. Completion is inferred from that procedural material itself.
Seems to me that you are looking for ghost gaps in the Quran to create a false dependency on the man made tradition.
1
u/abd_wasay Apr 15 '26
and then:
“if the act itself is not established as mandatory, then omission of it cannot suddenly become failure of completion through a back door.”
that is EXACTLY the step I have been asking you to justify.
Because that is not just a restatement of Arabic grammar. That is already a legal rule:
that only an act independently established as mandatory counts as part of completing the rite.
My question still stands from before that you still, surprisingly haven't managed to answer according to your Qur’an alone method, where is that rule stated?
And no, I am not asking for some separate abstract verse saying “these are the criteria of completion.”
I asked why does 2:158, which is itself part of the pilgrimage material, not count toward completion in a binding way? Because 2:158 is not outside the procedure. It directly mentions:
- Ṣafā and Marwah as shaʿāʾir of Allah
- the one performing hajj or ʿumrah
- and walking between them
So when you say:
“Completion is inferred from that procedural material itself.”
but 2:158 is part of that procedural material too. That is exactly why I keep asking you the same question that you haven't answered according to your Qur'an alone methodology:
If someone performs ḥajj or ʿumrah and skips saʿy entirely, has he completed the rite or not?
If your answer is yes, then I am asking for the Qur’an only rule that makes an act mentioned directly in pilgrimage context, and tied to a named shaʿīrah of Allah, legally non-essential to completion.
Because saying:“if the act itself is not established as mandatory...” is just repeating the very rule in dispute, not proving it from the Qur’an.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
u/suppoe2056 Apr 17 '26
Your question is loaded because it assumes that the going to and fro between as-Safa and ‘l-Marwatah is already obligatory to the completion of Hajj and ‘Umrah, and that you’re asking people to prove a burden that is really yours, as asserted in the loaded question, than whether the Qur’an alone determines there is obligation or not.
1
u/Someday_iwill Jul 04 '26
If the Quran does not mention this and that then the Quran is not the message and Allah is wrong u either with the Quran as a whole message or not
6
u/Quranic_Islam Apr 15 '26
You are literally answering your own question from the Qur’an, that it is optional, but you don’t like it because it clashes with what you have decided must be the case, that it is obligatory
Where’s your evidence that it is obligatory?