Love in Koran

Love in Koran
by Arash Monzavi-Kia

God does not love aggressors.

Yet there are people who adopt tyrants instead of God, whom they love just as they should love God.

Those who believe are firmer in their love of God – if only those who commit evil might see - when they face torment, how strength is wholly God's, and God is severe with torment.

Do good: God loves those who act kindly.

God loves the penitent and He loves those who try to keep clean.

God does not love wrongdoers!

God loves the kindly, and those who remember God and seek forgiveness of their offences when they commit some shocking deed or harm their kind - for who forgives offences besides God?

God does not love someone who is conceited, boastful, nor those who are tight-fisted and order people to be stingy, and hide anything that God has given them out of His bounty.

God does not love evil talk in public, unless it is by some who has been injured thereby.

God loves those who deal fairly. Know that God is forgiving, merciful.

God does not love those who create havoc.

He does not love those who are aggressive.

God loves those who cleanse themselves.

He does not love the prideful.

God does not love every swaggering boaster. Act modestly in the way you walk, and lower your voice: the ugliest sound is a donkey's howl!

God does not love every conceited boaster, who is miserly and orders people to be miserly.

God loves the fair-minded.

Thanks to the translation by Dr. Irving.


Recently by Arash Monzavi-KiaCommentsDate
وابستگی، استقلال، همبستگی‌
Nov 04, 2012
The pain of living
Oct 21, 2012
The 2nd Year of Green
Jun 01, 2010
more from Arash Monzavi-Kia

Glad to be of service

by Nur-i-Azal on



The following ones............

by Latina on

 Each one could be an individual blog............

I seem to have left out the "s" on my previoius post. I meant to say "comments". Oops!

  • Comment to Jamshid 
  • Principles of the esoteric interpretation of the Qur'an
  • Khomeini was the essence of mediocrity
  • Wrongdoers in the Qur'an



Which one

by Nur-i-Azal on




by Latina on


Very interesting comment......Wow!


AMK - true, but Islamists have shown their hand in 31 years

by MM on



Q !

by hooshie on

Isn't it funny that you didn't miss my last comment, despite your "lack of interest", but you missed the one before last, "due to" lack of interest LOL. Well I am not going to repeat what I said in my deleted comment, in case your vulnerable self is to be hurt . But I just put this to you that for some one whose comments are a waste of time, i.e. moi, you have written in recent weeks between 10 to 15 comments, some quite lengthy, in reply !!!!  

Azali: make notes LOL

Arash Monzavi-Kia

MM: most humans can reform

by Arash Monzavi-Kia on

Many crimes against humanity have been committed by many groups (Monarchist, Islamist, Communists) in Iran.

Our stance should be against any and all criminal activities, no matter who has committed them.

We should also give all honest people and groups a chance to reform and make up for their past mistakes and mischief.


Jamshid - Islamists are beyond reform - they need to go away

by MM on

After 31 years of torture, rape and murder, these Islamists need to be cut away from politics and back to their cubicles in Ghom, Najaf and Mashhad.

Nepotism, corruption and injustice runs deep in the divine cesspool.



by Nur-i-Azal on

The biggest problem that beset Twelver Shi'ism (not just Islam) was the rise of the Usuli faction in the madrasas beginning at the end of the 18th century. The consequences have been dire. Here's what I said in email to someone recently about this:


The Usuli school is the ultra-rationalist development in fiqh
which has since taken predominance over earlier, more authentic and Traditionalist approaches,
which as a result has now produced some severe consequences for the Shi'a faithful. IMHO the Akhbari (Traditionalists) were
closer to the sunna (practice) of the Imams (as) since emulation (taqlid) was
theoretically only given to the People of the House (Ahl al-Bayt) directly, no one else. Note one of the
consequences of Usulism is precisely Khomeinism.

Since pretty much the middle period of the Safavid era the mujtahids have been actively wrestling with the concept of the niyabat'ul-khass
(special or exclusive deputyship) to the Hidden Imam. Classical Shi'ism
holds that after the passing of the 4th of the Special Gates (abwab arba'a)
all special or exclusive physical representation of the Imam on behalf
of the whole community effectively ceased. Throughout this period the 'ulama argued back and forth as to what their role  vis-a-vis the Imam in occultation actually was, and so they came up with this concept of niyabat'ul-khass. In
the earlier pre-Safavid period, these debates existed, but not with the
same urgency. At first this concept of special deputyship theoretically
encompassed the entire collective ecclesia of the 'ulama. Over time this has been whittled down, first, to one or a couple individuals in the institution of the marja' at-taqlid (source of emulation) -- which came about in the mid/late 19th century.

Khomeini's notion of the absolute guardianship of the jurisprudent (wilayat'ul-mutlaqa al-faqih)
-- whose theoretical predecessor was one Shaykh Fazlollah Nuri, an
arch-reactionary figure from the turn of the last century -- was the
next crucial development which effectively attempts to consolidate (or,
usurp rather) that earlier system into a form of Shi'ite papacy or
caliphate and so gather all authority into one hand alone. The Shi'ite 'ulama
outside Iran (particularly in Iraq) have vigorously resisted this development, albeit not effectively enough, and not a few in Iran
itself as well.

Note Grand Ayatollah Sistani's occasional
pokes and jibes at the Iranian system, albeit he is ethically Iranian
himself. Besides the obvious, the consequences of Khomeinism are pretty
dire because it is explicitly attempting to take over the role of the Imam of the
Age. During the Revolution and thereafter (and even now) some believed
Khomeini was the Imam Mahdi in person. He himself never disabused
anyone of that notion either, although he never explicitly endorsed it
either. From my point of view, and that of countless Shi'a of all
persuasions, this is outright heresy. We see the consequences today in
its present form as a military theocracy where the regime does not even
attempt a pretense of piety anymore. But the systematic consolidation of power into fewer and fewer hands by the Usuli establishment has led matters to this point we see today.

While contemporary thinkers like Abdolkarim Soroush or Mohsen Kadivar have not yet broached this issue with any depth, I believe a return to the Akhbari (Traditionalist) positions  of earlier times is the only viable step for the Twelver Shi'ite  community. This will also entail unravelling the institution of the marja' taqlid (source of emulation) as well. If the Shi'a genuinely wish to keep the authenticity of their faith intact, let them return to the primary sources and particularly the teachings of the Imams (as) in the akhbar (traditions). In a situation such as this every believer theoretically becomes their own mujtahid and hence the problems the Usuli 'ulama have created over the past 300 years will also disappear since from there on out all matters of the shar'ia are left specifically to the disgression of each believer to implement for themselves without any secondary agencies or mediators.



I should add here that a return to the Akhbari approach in Shi'i Islam  would very well be able to theoretically accomodate a secular political program as well.


MM, good points

by jamshid on

One more point I want to add to those you listed is that Islamic scholars have gotten habituated with easily eliminating any competition through sheding their blood or intimidating them into silence.

That is why they have remained so backwarded. That is why in the 21st century, we still have an abomination called "tozihol masaael".

In a truly secular form of government, where people can speak their minds and critic whatever they want without fear of persecution, these same Islamic scholars will be forced to do some real "scholarly" work in order to compete. They will be forced to evolve and modernize their views. Interestingly, this would benefit Islam, not damage it.


Souri, Faryarm

by jamshid on

Souri, I am glad you enjoyed the debate. I've got to see that movie you mentioned after reading the name of the actors!

Faryarm: You last response to me did not make any sense, and therefore I cannot answer to it.


hooshie, sorry, missed your "criticism"

by Q on

I'm sure that's all it was!

Sadly, due to lack of interest, I did not get to read whatever it is you are crying about now. But rest assured, you are welcome to go on playing fantasy victim, if that helps you cope with life.

Nur: enlightening points.


Thanks for flagging me out Q

by hooshie on

It shows how fragile you are in the face of exposing criticism. If you can't take it, chicken out.


Thanks Yolanda for your kind words, and you are welcome

by MM on

You also will not find me quite anymore, and from time to time, see my emails with the title of "CALL TO ACTION".



by yolanda on

Hi! MM,

Thank you for your post! It is very interesting!

It is sad that jihadists justify atrocities by using Koran.....of course IRI carries out atrocities & executes people in the name of God!

It is true that American people pretty much lump Sunnis and shiites together..

Thank you for putting me in the "good folks" category! What an honor! LOL!


I resisted speaking out on this issue for a few days, but......

by MM on

As most holy books, there are opposing verses regarding many issues in Quran.  Two problems arise from this dichotomy:


The first problem is the clarity of the message: While good folks like Yolanda or Latina concentrate on the verses that talk about being kind, forgiving and loving, Islamists / Al Qaeda members zoom in the verses that talk about smiting the infidels to the viles of hell to collect their 72 virgins.


The second problem is being complacent and content: Since the jihadists use Fatwa’s or the verses of Quran to justify their atrocities, the other side sits idle, basically saying next to nothing.  This causes all to conclude that we, the Muslims, are of the same mold.  So, as the old Persian proverb says ”they beat us all with the same stick”.


And, here we are, being treated like the jihadists especially after the 9/11 atrocities.  I was also guilty of not strongly condemning the atrocities since I thought that it was an act committed by Sunni non-Iranians.  Before you knew it, Iran was part of the Axis of Evil, thanks to events completely out of our hands. 

Thank you Al Qaeda and Bush.  Well, having an Islamist Iranian government did not help either.



by yolanda on

Apparently there are commonalities between Koranic verses and biblical verses (in Ms. Latina's post) regarding "love":

Koran says:

God loves the kindly.....God does not love someone who is conceited, boastful......God does not love evil talk in public.......He does not love the prideful......God does not love every swaggering boaster...

Bible says:

Love is kind,
it does not boast,
It is not proud
It keeps no record of wrongs.



the love in Ghoran

by Seagull (not verified) on

was God's tough love for the people of the time and it had a time a place and a purpose....

Today, we understand more and are in need of a love that matches that understanding. 

Arash Monzavi-Kia


by Arash Monzavi-Kia on

thanks latina


Love is.......

by Latina on



"Love is patient, Love is kind,
It does not envy, it does not boast,
It is not proud, It is not rude,
It is not self-seeking,
It is not easily angered,
It keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil,
but rejoices with the truth.

Love always protects, always trusts,
always hopes, always perseveres.

Love bears all things, believes all things,
hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends.

L o v e  N e v e r  F a i l s."


Khomeini was the essence of mediocrity

by Nur-i-Azal on

Whatever Soroush says. And his taw'il of the Qur'an is good for his aunt. I have read Khomeini's poetry and his philosophical works, his commentary on the du'a sahar, his mediocre esoteric commentaries on the Book. They are, at best, second rate. There were far better esoteric exegetes with depth amongst the recent 'ulama than Khomeini. One of these was the late Siyyid Jalaluddin Ashtiyani (ra) who sharply turned against Khomeini after the (counter-)revolution of '79.

Henry Corbin's living teachers were Etienne Gilson, Louis Massignon, Karl Barth and Martin Heidegger. His real guru was Shihabuddin Yahya Suhrawardi, the Shaykh'ul-Ishraq. Corbin and Tabatabai engaged in an interesting philosophical dialogue for several years, the results of which were published in a book. But Tabatabai was not Henry Corbin's teacher, especially since Corbin already had a dual post at the Sorbonne and at Tehran University (later changed to a permanent honorary post at Aryamehr) when he first met Allameh Tabatabai.

Abdolkarim Soroush is not the foremost Rumi scholar alive. That honor goes exclusively to Mohammad Este'lami and the late Turkish Mevlevi scholar Golpinarli. Soroush is one amongst many scholars of Rumi. But foremost, he mostly definitely isn't. 


Not so simple Azali

by hooshie on

Thanks for more copy-and-pasted material. But dispite all your pretnetious Corbin sources (I don't know why we need Corbin when we have Al-mizan by Corbin's teacher Guru, Allameh Tabatabai: // - just for a show off I presume).

But before you choke us by a barrage of Googled knowledge, analyze this:

As for your esoteric (ta'avil) as opposed to exoteric (tafseer) approach to  exegesis, Khomeini was labelled as one of the greatest esoteric Quran scholars (or in his words Sufis) alive back in his heydays by no other than the greatest Rumi expert alive: Abdol Karim Soroush.  Is this an example of how you pretentious Sufis approach the interpretation of the Quran? Khomeini style!!


Principles of the esoteric interpretation of the Qur'an

by Nur-i-Azal on

Here's something I wrote for another list where the same set of questions regarding fire and brimstone in the Qur'an came up:


There are various ways to read the Qur'an
established by the gnostic milieu in the Islamic world from the very
beginning. Our approach is this esoteric reading and not the
literalist exoteric reading where the elements you decry are to be
taken at face-value and literally without deeper insight or
realization. But this is a problem present in the Abrahamic tradition
as a whole, not just in Islam, and the same issues exist in both the
Old and New Testaments as well. Fire and brimstone is also present to
some degree in the Hindu tradition also.

That said, when we pass beyond the basic configurations of the fire
and brimstone narratives in these Abrahamic traditions, we see that
there are two dynamics operative related to the activity of the Divine.
There is 1) Mercy (rahma) and then there is 2) Wrath (qahr).
Visionaries such as Ibn 'Arabi (d. 1240) then place this dual activity
of the Divine under the rubric of the two primary forms of its
theophany and self-disclosure (tajalli), i.e. theophanies relating to the Name and Attribute of Beauty (jamal) and theophanies related to the Name and Attribute of Majesty (jalal). Beauty relates to Mercy and expansion, and Majesty refers to Wrath and contraction.
This principle then posits the rhythm of Absolute Being, the Ultimate
Reality as exhalation (= Beauty, Mercy, expansion) and inhalation
(Majesty, Wrath, contraction) of the forms of existence in their
process of existentiation and annihilation.

This method of hermenuetics and esoteric exegesis is defined in the gnostic milieu of Islam by the term Tawil
(i.e. taking things back to their root or source). Seen from this
light, the various fire and brimstone narratives (and conversely the
light and wisdom narratives) in the Qur'an (as well as in the Bible) become so many symbolic allegories indicating the majestic, wrathful and contractive element in the Godhead.

The first volume of Henry Corbin's History of Islamic Philosophy
has additional things to say about the esoteric approach to the Book.
It is worthwhile to look at it to get a bird's eye view as to where we
are coming from,


(look esp. at pp. 9-16 of the pdf)

Basically the approach is that scripture is a sealed text whose
outward literal sense and meaning both veils as well as reveals its
true inner meanings, which are infinite. The understanding is that to
get access to this inner, esoteric meaning initiation and transmission
into the mysteries of the Book is required (the same goes for the Torah
in the Kabbalah as well). The Qur'an also states this about itself when
it states that none shall glean the full scope of the meaning of its
text other than "those firmly rooted in knowledge" (3:6). In one interpretation, those firmly rooted in knowledge refers, first, to the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (the people of the house as the human theophanic angelophanies of the Divine) and, next, to their adepts and initiates.

Obviously this way of looking at things has driven the literalists and
fundamentalists mad for centuries, which is why there has been so much
persecution of mystics, esotericists and gnostics in the Islamic world
from the beginning. But this is where we stand.

Ahmed from Bahrain

Veiled Parophet of Khurasan

by Ahmed from Bahrain on

Allow me to remove my veil. The answer to all your sincere questions asked here is the following:

Follow your own heart and stop asking others to explain stuff that is very personal to them, whilst you clearly have no interest in their personal stuff.

That hadith referred to here about God's love and the killing stuff is a simple stuff for anyone who has practiced spirituality but for someone who wants evidence it sounds crazy. That is why such stuff is very personal.

There is a verse in Quran that says: die before you die. The first death is to close your eyes to this world and listen to your heart (death of the ego), that is where wisdom starts and when you hear it and I mean literally, then you follow it and when you follow it, you see its result and when you see its result your faith strengthens and when that happens, you have killed that side of you which harbours desires beyond reason or limit, and when that happens, you become part of that divine that you now understand.

That is to say that you were always part of the divine but you did not listen to your own divine self and now you have. It is like an orphan who has found their mum and dad.

Why this is so? There is a verse in Quran that says: There is no compulsion in religion - let me say here: all that stuff of fire and brim-stone was delivered during tumultuous period - that is the stuff that the society itself was very familiar with- so it is as if the divine through Mohammad spoke the language of the time - Today we have come a long way and we must let go of all that and follow what our hearts tell us AND the revelations of today is much more higher spiritually and physically IF - repeat IF we can rise to the challenge of being HUMAN.

One can not force anyone to love God, hence "there is no compulsion in religion" verse. One must give one's heart to a lover willingly and buggar the consequences attitude like: Layla va Majnoon; Romeo and Juliet; Yousuf va Zuliekha. None of these stories makes sense logically but romantically we all swoon, well I do; may be you don't!?

The end result however, is the same - That is unity of mankind and treating each other as divine, since again the Quran and many other such religious book clearly state that God is beyond need. So, he does not need my prayers but as an example I still continue to  pray:

And the beloved says: baba bia besheen digeh, nemikhad inqadar khoono ro jaroo koni va khodat khasteh koni.

And the lover says: man doost darm toro khidmat konam. Qorboonet, bizar man jayeto ro ye kemi pakizetar konam.

This is a play on LOVE.

ALL HE needs is for you and I to become God-like and treat each other as divinely creatures that we are.

Tell me:

Are you still prepared to speak harshly to a person who loves you that much like a heavenly creature? Would you cheat him? Who you belittle him? Would you steal from him? 

AND, Heaven forbid: Would you kill him? (or her)

Naturally all such things become so basic that the answer is an outright NO. Such stuff never crosses your mind. If you are like that then you are already a HEP - highly evolved person.

So, forget about God and let us rise to being HUMAN and no more hiding behind veils please.

Enter into my harem free from thine veil, ye infidel.

Qurbanat. Respect.

Ahmed from Bahrain

Arash Monzavi-Kia


by Arash Monzavi-Kia on

"For those who believe, no reason is necessary, but for those who don't, no reason is enough."

The realm of religion and spirituality is not a reasonable domain. It is ruled by faith and belief, not by observation and calculation. There is not even a reasoned proof for the existence of god (e.g. see Russell), let alone an objective method for discerning his prophets or Books.

Yes, you are right in more ways than one that "there is no way to know", but that agnosticism is irrelevant to the billions of people, who on a daily basis have to act, to choose and to live. Mostly, their lives depend on faith, and sometimes even solely are directed by it.

Take the case of a billion Muslims. What percentage can actually function on their "own judgment"? Heck, even the "intellectuals" like you and I are not mostly driven by our judgment, but by our instincts and our surroundings. If 95% of our Iranian Muslim population needs faith in their life, shouldn't we intervene in that process? Should we just leave them to the destructive mullah's?

It is said that Koran contains every thought (all wet and dry). I have just tried to accentuate the positive. Knowing that evil lurks in everything human, that's all I can do. People crave the security of faith and assurance. We cannot just throw them the harsh and raw equations and formula.

Life is naught but a leap of faith.



by Nur-i-Azal on

You've quoted from hadith, not from the Qur'an, and this is an ahadith Qudsi from the Imams (as). My translation below of the text you quoted. BTW Husayn 'Ali Baha' quotes this hadith several times in his khalu'iyeh (aka Kitab-i-Iqan). FYI


Whomsoever seeks Me will find Me and whomsoever finds Me will
know Me and whomsoever knows Me will love Me and whomsoever loves Me
will love me passionately and whomsoever loves Me passionately I will
love passionately and whomsoever I will love passionately I will kill
and whomsoever I will kill I will be their blood requital, for verily
for whomsoever I am the blood
requital, I Am the recompense of that


Wrongdoers in the Qur'an

by Nur-i-Azal on


 Who is a "wrongdoer". Is it the one who does not wear hijab; the woman
who dares say she is equal to man; the polytheist; the unbeliever; the
homosexual or just anyone who does not submit.


If you want to hear the Sufi answer to this question or the answer from an esoteric Shi'ite, then it is unqualifiedly NO. Wrongdoer is really none of those things specifically! A wrongdoer - which can also be glossed as oppressor or tyrant since the word is usually the plural zalimin of the singular zulm - is a species at core different from any of those things. The oppressors/tyrants/wrongdoers in the Qur'an are also usually synonymous with the kafirin (infidels/truth coverers) and munafiqin (hypocrites). The word kafir comes from the triliteral verb k-f-r (kafara) which means to cover or conceal something. Munafiq is the passive participle form of the verbal noun of the triliteral verb root n-f-q (nafaqa) which means to sow discord, make mischief, etc. All of these  words are closely tied conceptually to the notion of this-wordly power and its abuses, i.e. political tyranny like the IRI's.

Wrongdoer (kafir/munafiq/zalim) is likewise synonymous with the notion of those losers (khasirin) of the true spiritual inheritance, since total material gain and material power in the form  of tyrannical political power is the  complete inverse reality of absolute spiritual bounty and grace.

As such, from the point of the Qur'an itself, the entire Islamic establishment, whether Sunni or Shi'i, who engage in any of this sort of tyrannical, oppressive political behavior against innocent people at any time or in any form are by definition wrongdoers/tyrants (zalimin) not to mention infidels (kafirin) and hypocrites (munafiqin) - who are the losers (khasirin) of the true spiritual trust (amana) of Allah (swt).

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Thank you for a straight answer. I see where you are coming from. Now I like to pose another question:

Assume that there is a God and this God does not like dissension. How do I know what is the word of God and what is not?

  • How do I know Quoran or Bible is the word of God?
  • How do I know Quoran is not the word of Muhammad.
  • Since Muhammad did not actually write Quoran how do I know it is not the word of whoever actually wrote it?
  • Assuming the inspiration for a religious book came from and outside force. How do I know it was God and not the Devil or some other being?

If I am to follow a book shouldn't I want to be sure it is the right one? What if I follow the wrong one? Then I will be a wrong doer despite my best efforts and God will be angry.

I am very serious about these questions. In my opinion there is no way to know. Therefore we are stuck with our own judgment.


Classic hooshie!

by Q on


Your main point was completely irrelevent and devoid of all scholarship (i.e. bullshit) back then, and it is still a bullshit time-waster now, and the reason you feel bad for being ignored is that alone.

but thanks for making us all laugh for a change with this gem:

Not only your Enligh sucks but so does your Arabic you little lier you

"LOL"- indeed!

for anybody who isn't completely bored yet, here's the blog in question. Read it and make your own judgement as for how worthless hooshie's vocabulary obsession really is:

Now, hooshie jan, just run along and find another person's blog to gossip, bitch and moan behind my back.

FYI: Arabic and Persian are different languages! Don't say I'm not teaching you anything.


Azali no use lying - LOL

by hooshie on

Poor Azali, even your little lies cannot save your face. No use back-tracking either Azali. The evidence is there for everyone to see.

I simply asked:

Eshgh (or ashagha in its orginal pronounciation) is an Arabic word. I challenge anyone who can show as single record of this word or its derivatives in Quran.


And you copied and pasted (your specialty) fifty verses but failed to cite a single record of Eshgh. Nor could you explain why there was an absence of Eshgh. Now I see why. Your Arabic is worse than your English. What part of Bahai education was lost on you? If the word Eshgh is only referring to erotic love, then why is it  that we have so many examples as in this famous Hadees Ghodsi

من طلبنی وجدنی و من وجدنی عرفنی و من عرفنی احبنی و من احبنی عشقنی
و من عشقنی عشقته و من عشقته قتلته و من قتلته فعلی دیته و من علی دیته
فانا دیته

I suppose Allah's reaching orgasm in making love to His subjects (LOL). Not only your Enligh sucks but so does your Arabic you little lier you (LMAO).


I won't tell you why there is no trace of Eshgh in the Quran - yet.  Boy I am not gonna spoil the fun of taking you for more rides. more LOL.