Agape, Ahavah, and the Question of Divine Love in the Quran

A Critical and Comparative Teaching Lesson for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readers

Sidney Louis Davis Jr.
AskTheTeacher.blog · Roxbury, Massachusetts

Preface

This lesson began as a series of questions about how the Bible and the Quran each address the treatment of enemies, and it grew into a wider inquiry into how each scripture speaks — or does not speak — about the very nature of God. It is offered here as a teaching document, not as an attack on any people. Muslims, Christians, and Jews are each addressed directly in these pages, because each tradition has a stake in the question this lesson asks: what does it mean to say, and what does it cost not to say, that God himself is love?

The approach taken here is historical-critical and text-based (peshat): claims are tested against the wording of the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, the Septuagint, the Apostolic Writings (New Testament), and the Quran, rather than against later doctrinal summaries of any of the three traditions. The New Testament is treated throughout as what it in fact is — a body of Second Temple Jewish literature, written by Jews, about a Jewish teacher, addressing internal Jewish questions of covenant, Torah, and holiness under Roman occupation. Reading it as anything else obscures both its content and its argument.

This is a polemical lesson in the classical sense: it argues a case and invites the reader to test that case against the primary texts. It is not a polemic against Muslims as people, and nothing here should be read as license for contempt toward them. It is a comparative examination of two textual traditions on a single, precise question.

↑ Back to Contents

I. The Question

The inquiry begins with a specific New Testament command: believers are told to love their enemies actively — to bless those who curse them, and to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:44). The Greek term behind this command is agape — an intentional, active, unconditional benevolence extended even toward an adversary. The first question this lesson asks is narrow: does the Quran contain an equivalent command, an instruction to extend this same active, unconditional love toward one’s enemies?

The second and larger question follows from the first: the New Testament does not stop at commanding agape as a human behavior. In 1 John 4:8 and 4:16, it makes an ontological claim — not merely that God loves, or acts lovingly, but that “God is love” (ho theos agape estin). This is a statement about the essence of God, not merely his conduct. Does the Quran, or any other sacred literature outside the Apostolic Writings, contain an equivalent declaration — a statement that God’s very being, and not merely his action, is love?

↑ Back to Contents

II. Love of Enemies: The Biblical Command and the Quranic Ethic

The Torah forbids hatred in the heart (Leviticus 19:17) and commands love of neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) — the same chapter, the same ethical unit. Second Temple Jewish teachers, including Yeshua, extended and intensified this command in debate with other internal Jewish positions of the period, arriving at the demand to love and bless even one’s persecutors (Matthew 5:44). This is not a Greco-Roman innovation grafted onto Judaism; it is an internal development of a Torah command, argued out among Jews, in a Jewish text, using Jewish categories of covenant and holiness.

The Quran, by contrast, does not command this. Surah 5:8 forbids allowing hatred of a people to drive one to injustice — a restraint on behavior, not a command to love. Surah 60:8 permits kindness and equity toward peaceable non-believers — again, a permission bounded by their peaceableness, not an unconditional mandate. Surah 41:34 goes further than these two, instructing believers to “repel evil by that which is better,” with the stated result that an enemy may become “as though he were a devoted friend” — but classical commentators read this as strategic patience and good conduct meeting bad treatment, not as an inner command to feel or extend agape.

The distinction is precise and should not be blurred in either direction: the Quran’s ethic toward enemies is built on justice, restraint, proportionality, and patience. It is a real and, on its own terms, a serious ethic. But it is not agape, and it does not ask what agape asks. Nothing in the Quran instructs believers to initiate active, unconditional benevolence toward those who remain hostile.

↑ Back to Contents

III. Agape in the Septuagint and the Hebraic Roots of the Command

Because the Apostolic Writings were composed in Koine Greek, it might appear that agape is a purely Hellenistic import into an otherwise Semitic tradition. The evidence does not support that conclusion. The Greek noun agape does occur in the Septuagint (LXX) — sparingly, most notably in the Song of Songs, with isolated instances elsewhere — while the related verb agapao is used throughout the LXX to translate the Hebrew ahavah (love). The noun’s later explosion into a technical theological term belongs to the Apostolic Writings, but the underlying concept it names was never absent from the Hebrew textual tradition; it was simply carried by different vocabulary — principally ahavah and chesed.

This matters for how the command in Matthew 5:44 should be read. It is not a foreign ethic imported into Judaism through a Greek philosophical loanword. It is a Jewish intensification of the Torah’s own ahavah-ethic, expressed, because the text happens to be in Greek, with a Greek noun.

↑ Back to Contents

IV. “God Is Love”: An Ontological Claim Without Parallel

Turning to the larger question: neither the Quran nor any other sacred literature outside the Apostolic Writings contains an ontological declaration that God’s essence is love, as stated in 1 John 4:8 and 4:16. This claim should be stated carefully, because it is easy to overstate or understate.

The Quran does contain divine names that describe God as loving and merciful — Al-Wadud (“The Loving” or “The Affectionate,” Surah 11:90 and 85:14) and Ar-Rahman (“The Merciful”). These are genuine and important attributes within Islamic theology. But an attribute is not an ontology. Al-Wadud describes something God does or is disposed toward in relation to those who meet certain conditions; it does not assert, as 1 John does, that love constitutes the substance of what God is, prior to and independent of any relationship or condition. The grammar itself marks the difference: “God is loving” (a predicate adjective, describing a quality God has) is not the same claim as “God is love” (a predicate nominative, identifying love with God’s very being).

The Hebrew Bible does not use the exact grammatical formula of 1 John either — ahavah does not appear as a name or predicate identifying YHWH’s essence in the Tanakh. But the Tanakh supplies the entire conceptual content that 1 John’s Greek formula compresses into a single sentence, and it does so at far greater length and with far greater specificity than the Quran supplies for its own divine names.

↑ Back to Contents

V. Ahavah and Chesed: YHWH’s Unearned, Enduring Love

The Torah and the Prophets describe YHWH’s love toward the patriarchs and toward Israel using two Hebrew terms that together carry the theological weight later compressed into the Greek agape: ahavah, God’s active, chosen love, and chesed, his steadfast, loyal loving-kindness that persists even through Israel’s unfaithfulness.

Deuteronomy 7:7–8 states plainly that YHWH did not choose Israel for their number or their merit, “but because the Lord loves you (ahav), and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers.” This is love as sovereign, unearned choice — not a reward for prior obedience.

Jeremiah 31:3 declares: “I have loved (ahav) you with an everlasting love; therefore, with lovingkindness (chesed) I have drawn you.” The love is called everlasting, not conditional on continued performance.

Isaiah 54:10 pledges: “Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet My unfailing love (chesed) for you will not be shaken.” This is love pledged to withstand covenantal failure, not withdrawn the moment it occurs.

Across these texts, YHWH’s love for Israel is never portrayed as a distant sentiment. It is active — bound to promises, demonstrated in deliverance from Egypt, and sustained through covenantal loyalty that Israel’s own failures do not extinguish. This is the Hebraic substance that later underlies the Apostolic Writings’ claim that God’s very being is love: it is not a new idea introduced by Greek-speaking Jews in the first century, but the fullest possible statement of what the Torah and the Prophets had already been describing for a thousand years.

↑ Back to Contents

VI. Divine Love in the Quran: A Conditional and Reciprocal Structure

The Quran’s treatment of divine love follows a different structure. Islamic theology distinguishes between Allah’s universal, sustaining mercy (rahma), extended broadly to all creation, righteous and wicked alike, and his specific, approving love (hubb or mahabba), which is explicitly reserved for those who meet defined conditions.

The Quran repeatedly ties this specific love to behavior: Allah loves al-muhsinin (those who do good), the just, the patient, and those who repent — and just as explicitly withholds it from others. Surah 3:32 states, “Indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers,” and Surah 3:140 states, “And Allah does not like the wrongdoers.” Divine love, on this structure, is a status attained and a status that can be lost.

The conditional, reciprocal shape of this love is stated directly in Surah 3:31, where the Prophet is instructed to say: “If you should love Allah, then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive your sins.” The structure is explicitly “if–then”: human obedience is the antecedent, and divine love is the consequent that follows from it.

This is a coherent theology on its own terms, and it should be represented fairly: it is not a claim that God is capricious or unloving toward creation generally, since rahma is extended broadly. But it is a fundamentally different structure from the Hebraic-Apostolic pattern above, in which YHWH’s ahavah and chesed initiate the relationship unearned, precede any human merit, and are pledged to survive human failure. In the Quranic structure, divine love as such (hubb) is a relational standard that must be earned, is maintained by continued compliance, and can be lost through disobedience or unbelief.

↑ Back to Contents

VII. Summary Comparison

↑ Back to Contents

VIII. Why This Matters: A Word to Each Reader

To the Jewish reader: this comparison is not an argument for Christian doctrine as such. It is a demonstration that the Apostolic claim “God is love” is not a Hellenistic novelty foreign to Torah, but a Greek-language distillation of what Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and Isaiah already say about YHWH’s ahavah and chesed. Recognizing this restores the New Testament to its proper place as Second Temple Jewish literature, rather than ceding it to later Gentile Christian theology that too often severed it from Israel, the Torah, and the covenant.

To the Christian reader: this comparison should sharpen appreciation for how deeply 1 John’s ontological claim is rooted in the Hebrew Bible, and should caution against treating agape as though it sprang, uncaused, from Greek philosophy or a rupture with Judaism. The command to love one’s enemy and the claim that God is love are both Jewish claims before they are Christian ones.

To the Muslim reader: this lesson does not deny that the Quran commands justice, restraint, and mercy, nor that Allah’s rahma extends to all creation. It argues, on textual grounds, that the Quran does not make the specific claim that God’s love toward enemies is unconditional, nor the specific claim that love constitutes God’s essence rather than one of his attributes. A reader who disagrees is invited to identify the verse that makes either claim in those precise terms — this lesson’s argument stands or falls on that textual question, and on no other.

↑ Back to Contents

IX. Are Allah and YHWH the Same God? A Note on Divine Identity and Incompatible Attributes

The comparison developed in this lesson invites a further question, one that goes beyond scripture’s wording to the identity of the God each scripture claims to describe. If the Quran and the Hebrew Bible ascribe to “God” attributes that are not merely different in emphasis but logically incompatible, then something stronger than a textual difference is at stake: either the two texts describe two different beings, or one of them misdescribes the being both claim to describe. This section states that argument carefully, applies it to the test case already established, and answers the strongest objections to it.

The Logical Framework: Non-Identity Through Incompatible Attributes

Classical theology in all three traditions holds that God’s essential attributes cannot be self-contradictory; a being cannot simultaneously and in the same respect possess and lack the same essential property. It follows that if Text A ascribes to God an essential attribute P, and Text B ascribes to God the contrary attribute not-P — not as accident or emphasis, but as a defining feature of how each text presents that attribute — then Text A and Text B are not offering two portraits of one settled identity. They are offering incompatible identity claims. Either they refer to two different beings, or at least one text has misidentified the being it claims to describe.

This is not a novel or ad hoc argument invented for this lesson. It is structurally the same move classical Jewish and Christian writers made against Marcion’s demiurge: the claim was not that the God of Marcion’s gospel was “the same God as the God of Israel, differently emphasized,” but that the character attributed to Marcion’s god — hostile to creation, discontinuous with the God of the Torah — was incompatible with the character YHWH reveals of himself, and therefore could not be the same God under a corrected description. The same logical test applies here.

The Argument Applied: Love as the Test Case

Sections V and VI of this lesson established the relevant attributes on textual grounds. YHWH’s love (ahavah, chesed) toward Israel is presented as essentially unconditional — grounded in his own oath and choice rather than Israel’s merit (Deut. 7:7–8), essentially irrevocable — pledged to survive covenantal failure rather than be withdrawn by it (Isa. 54:10; Jer. 31:3), and essentially unrestricted in reach — extended to Israel precisely while Israel is unfaithful, not narrowed away from the disobedient. Allah’s specific love (hubb, mahabba) is presented, with equal textual clarity, as essentially conditional — the consequent of an if–then structure keyed to obedience (Surah 3:31), essentially revocable — withdrawn from, or simply never extended to, the disbeliever and the wrongdoer (Surah 3:32, 3:140), and essentially restricted in reach — by definition excluded from those who fail the condition.

These are not two emphases on a single shared attribute. Unconditional-and-irrevocable and conditional-and-revocable are contrary predicates; a love cannot coherently be both at once, in the same respect. If this comparison is correct as a reading of the two textual traditions, it follows by the logical framework above that the God each text calls “loving” cannot be one and the same being under two descriptions. Either the Torah misdescribes God’s love, or the Quran does, or the two texts are naming two different beings.

Objection 1: Same Referent, Corrected Description (Tahrif)

The standard Muslim reply is not that Allah and YHWH are different deities, but that Allah is the same Creator-God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and that the Quran corrects corruptions (tahrif) that crept into the Jewish and Christian transmission of earlier revelation. On this view, an apparent attribute-conflict is evidence of prior scribal or theological corruption, not evidence of two gods.

This objection succeeds against a minor or isolated discrepancy — a variant number, a differing genealogy, a detail plausibly attributed to transmission. It does not succeed as easily against a discrepancy this structural. The unconditional, oath-bound character of YHWH’s covenantal love is not a peripheral detail scattered in one verse; it is the argument of entire prophetic books (Hosea’s marriage to an unfaithful wife as an enacted parable of this very point; the whole argument of Jeremiah 31) and is embedded in Israel’s foundational election narrative (Deut. 7:7–8). A tahrif claim broad enough to explain away this much coordinated material is no longer identifying a scribal error — it is asserting that the entire literary and theological structure of Israel’s covenant theology was fabricated or altered, which is a claim about the wholesale unreliability of the Tanakh, not a targeted correction of it. The objection is available in principle, but its cost rises sharply here, and the burden shifts to showing why so pervasive and load-bearing a theme should be treated as corruption rather than content.

Objection 2: Category Confusion — Hubb Is Not Allah’s Only Attribute of Love

A second objection notes, correctly, that hubb is not the whole of Allah’s benevolence. Rahma — mercy extended broadly to all creation, righteous and wicked alike — is closer to unconditional in reach, and a critic can argue that the comparison above has shown only that “Allah’s hubb differs from YHWH’s ahavah,” not that “Allah differs from YHWH.”

This objection is well taken and marks the honest limit of the argument. The polemical claim defended here should be stated at the scope it can bear: it is a claim about the specific, approving love-vocabulary (hubb, mahabba) that the Quran uses in the same conceptual space the Bible occupies with ahavah — the space of God’s favor toward, and relationship with, particular persons, not his general sustaining providence toward creation as a whole. Rahma is a genuine parallel to Israel’s experience of YHWH’s general chesed toward all his creatures (Psalm 145:9), and this lesson does not dispute that parallel. The claim is narrower and, for that reason, more defensible: the specific love-relationship each scripture describes between God and the persons he favors is structured differently — unconditional and irrevocable in the Torah, conditional and revocable in the Quran — and it is this specific comparison, not a comparison of the two religions’ entire doctrines of divine benevolence, that grounds the non-identity argument above.

Objection 3: The Trinity Counter-Move

A third objection turns the logic back on the New Testament: if incompatible essential attributes prove non-identity, does Trinitarian doctrine not ascribe to God attributes (three-in-one personhood) that are absent from, and arguably incompatible with, the strict unipersonal monotheism of the Tanakh — making the Trinity’s God, by the same logic, a different God from YHWH?

This is the objection most worth answering carefully, because it cannot be waved away by asserting Christian orthodoxy. The answer available within this lesson’s own historical-critical, Second-Temple-Jewish framework (see §III and the interpretive method underlying this project generally) is that the New Testament itself does not present Jesus’s identity as a departure from Israel’s monotheism but as an internal, contested Jewish argument about how the one God of Israel is present and active in his Messiah and Spirit — an argument conducted entirely within Jewish categories of agency, word, and spirit, by Jewish authors, addressed to Jewish questions, centuries before Nicene formulations of “three persons, one essence” imposed later Greek philosophical categories onto that material. The relevant test, applied consistently, is not “does a later creedal formula introduce new attribute-language” but “does the earliest textual layer ascribe to God an attribute essentially incompatible with what the Tanakh ascribes to YHWH.” Applied to the love comparison above, the Apostolic Writings’ claim that God is love is not a new or incompatible attribute but a restatement, in Greek ontological idiom, of exactly the unconditional, covenantal ahavah and chesed the Tanakh already ascribes to YHWH — continuity, not contrariety. Whether later Nicene formulations of personhood raise a separate and harder question is a matter for a different study; it does not weaken the narrower argument this section defends, which rests on the love-attribute comparison alone.

Conclusion of This Section

The claim that Allah and YHWH are not the same God “by definition” is defensible, but only at the scope the evidence supports: it is a claim that the Quran’s hubb and the Torah’s ahavah/chesed ascribe incompatible essential attributes to the God each text calls loving, and that this specific incompatibility — not a general comparison of the two religions’ entire theologies — is sufficient to establish non-identity under the classical rule that God’s essential attributes cannot be self-contradictory. Readers who wish to dispute this conclusion have two paths, and only two: show that the attributes compared are not, after all, essential to each tradition’s God-concept, or show that they are not, after all, incompatible. Absent either showing, the non-identity conclusion follows from the texts themselves.

↑ Back to Contents

X. Discussion Questions

1. What is the difference between a divine attribute (“God is loving”) and an ontological identity claim (“God is love”)? Why does that grammatical difference carry theological weight?
2. How does reading Matthew 5:44 as an internal Second Temple Jewish argument, rather than as a Christian departure from Judaism, change how the verse should be taught?
3. Is the Quran’s ethic of justice, restraint, and patience toward enemies (5:8; 60:8; 41:34) an adequate ethical framework on its own terms, even without a command to agape? What is gained and what is lost by not commanding love of enemies outright?
4. Deuteronomy 7:7–8 grounds YHWH’s love in his own choice rather than in Israel’s merit. What are the practical and pastoral implications of an unearned, covenant-based love as against a love that must be earned and can be lost?
5. Rahma and hubb are distinguished in Islamic theology as universal mercy and conditional love. Does the Hebrew Bible make a similar distinction between YHWH’s general providence toward all creation and his covenantal love for Israel? Where?
6. What must be true of an attribute for it to count as “essential” to a tradition’s concept of God, rather than incidental? Who decides — the text itself, its classical interpreters, or the comparativist making the argument?
7. Does the tahrif objection (Objection 1) succeed better against isolated textual details than against a theme as pervasive as covenantal love? What would count as evidence either way?

↑ Back to Contents

XI. Conclusion

The Bible commands what the Quran does not: active, unconditional love extended even to one’s enemies. This command is not a Greek import but a Jewish intensification of Leviticus 19, argued out within Second Temple Judaism and preserved for us in Jewish literature written in Greek. And the Bible declares what no other sacred text declares in the same terms: that love is not merely something God does, but what God is. The Quran’s Al-Wadud and Ar-Rahman describe genuine and important divine attributes, but they remain attributes — descriptions of God’s disposition toward those who meet his conditions — rather than a claim about the substance of God’s being. The Hebraic categories of ahavah and chesed, unearned and enduring, are the textual soil out of which the Apostolic claim “God is love” grew.

Section IX pressed this comparison one step further: because the two scriptures ascribe to God’s love essential and incompatible attributes — unconditional and irrevocable in the Torah, conditional and revocable in the Quran — the two texts cannot both be accurately describing the identical love of the identical being under the identical conditions. That conclusion should be held at the scope the argument actually supports, and no further; but at that scope, it stands. Any reader — Jewish, Christian, or Muslim — who wishes to test either conclusion is invited to do exactly what this lesson has done: return to the primary texts, verse by verse, and see for themselves.

↑ Back to Contents

Scripture and Quran Index

Each location link jumps to the exact place in the lesson where the citation appears. Clicking any citation in the text brings you back here.

Hebrew Bible and Apostolic Writings

Quran

↑ Back to Contents

© Sidney Louis Davis Jr. | AskTheTeacher.blog.