In this paper I explore how a literary approach to the kinds and degrees of divine love in the Qur'?n may explicate notions of dhikr (remembrance/mentioning) and 'ishq [love excess] for God beyond the duality of al-maq?m?t wa al-a?w?l (statuses and conditions) known in circles of Sufism. Basic theological understanding of divine love in Islam ranges from simple considerations of ri?? (contentment), ma'iyya (togetherness/companionship) and janna (paradise), to complex questions of immateriality as well as phenomenality (e.g. manifestations of divine love in the physical world). To interrogate this complexity, I draw specifically on ?y?t al-?ubb al-il?h? (verses of divine love) in the Qur'?n and on representative poems of divine adoration by Sufi thinkers such ibn 'Arab? and poets such as al-?all?j and 'Umar bin al-F?ri? to investigate whether Sufi iterations of al-?ubb al-il?h? (divine love) would complicate current debates on God and love in literary and theological Islamic discourses. If allegorical Sufi readings of the Qur'?n position divine love as apriori, how do the poetics of Sufi love delineate this relationship with divinity? Where exactly do we situate love in connection to wa?da-t- al-wuj?d (unity of Being) and al-ins?n al-k?mil (the complete human), a formulation at the very heart of Ibn 'Arab?'s cosmological and metaphysical doctrine of Sufism? For instance, Ibn 'Arab?'s equation of pantheism with divinity begs the question of the relation between the text, the divine, and the phenomenological world. If he firmly articulates this relation in optimistic terms of divine agency, namely, ra?ma sh?mila (comprehensive mercy) sans evil, ignorance, or defects, what type of performative agency then does he ascribe to heart of the '?rif (the one who knows by God) and, more importantly, how can all religions and beliefs be folded into one, d?nu al-?ubbi "the religion of love," as Ibn'Arab? describes in one of his poems in Turjum?n al-Ashw?q (Interpreter of Desires)? Ultimately, I argue that what we call Sufi love signals an epistemological collapse and triggers the confusion, if not the discontent, of normalized theology, precisely because it points to an endpoint of knowledge, unreachable to thought, though not entirely unimaginable in the phenomenological world.