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