Abdulla Galadari, Assistant Professor, Humanities & Social Sciences, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi UAE
Abstract
This paper compares the Qurʾanic concept of the “barzakh,” which is usually understood as the barrier between the realm of the living and the dead, with the concept of the bosom of Abraham in Luke’s parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The motif of the bosom of Abraham is analysed from within the wider Jewish traditions that existed in rabbinic literature that were in circulation during Late Antiquity to identify the relationship of this motif and its re-articulation in the Qurʾan.
There are various intertextualities between the Qurʾanic concept and the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. For example, Qurʾan 57:12–13 illustrates a difference between those who enjoy heaven and those who are in hell, and there is a barrier between them. The same can also be said in Qurʾan 7:41–53. This may be related to the chasm suggested by Abraham between himself and the rich man (i.e., Luke 16:25–26). Qurʾan 7:50 states that the people in hell will ask the people in heaven to pour some water on them, and the answer is that it is forbidden to the non-believers. This request is similar to the rich man’s, who asks Abraham to send Lazarus to him with water (i.e., Luke 16:24). Qurʾan 23:99–100 states that someone dies and requests to be returned to this life to change their deeds, but the answer implies that the dead cannot return to this life and change their deeds, as there is a “barzakh” between them. Similarly, Qurʾan 7:52–53 suggests that God has sent books and messengers to warn the people, but they did not heed them, and then they ask to be returned to change their deeds and live a righteous life. The same occurs when the rich man asks Abraham for Lazarus to return to warn the rich man’s family, and the answer is that his family already have Moses and the Prophets, and if they do not believe in them, then they will not believe someone who rises from the dead (i.e., Luke 16:27–31).
With many intertextualities that exist between the Qurʾan and the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, this paper attempts to understand if this motif was the backdrop of the Qurʾanic re-articulation.
As ever, I want to ask what this comparison does for Christian and Muslim readings of the 'Rich man and Lazarus' parable. One thing it immediately does for me is to make me re-read the parable as being about the chasm between the world of the dead and the world of this life. (I would usually read it as being about the rich man and the poor man).
I then ask whether we should read it alongside the story of the raising of a quite different Lazarus in John's Gospel (chapter 11). Does the raising of the dead imply bring someone back across that chasm? Is John calling his readers to repentance through his telling of his Lazarus story? And how far have Christians down the ages put the two Lazarus stories 'in conversation' with each other?
I think you bring out a very important point. Some Churches combine motifs of both Lazarus stories in the feast days of each. It is, however, a very important question to see if those two narratives may be read in light of each other, where Lazarus of Bethany has crossed the chasm to return back.
You have done an interesting study of the motif of "the chasm" (barzakh) in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. How does one make a determination on whether something is the Qur'an is taken directly from the Gospels or from some other tradition in Late Antiquity? Do you have a bibliography you can share? Thank you kindly.
There is no way to know with certainty, but the reason I feel I lean more towards a shared tradition rather than directly from the Gospel is that the Qur'an uses motifs of this parable in three completely separate passages and in each one, it uses a completely different term for the barrier/chasm. I would imagine if the Qur'an is using a single source, it would have been consistent. However, it seems more likely that the Qur'an is using multiple sources. I do place the full bibliographical details in footnote references. Some that might most discuss the relationship between the Qur'an its Late Antique sources, especially when it comes to the concept of the barrier, would include Emran El-Badawi's The Qur'an and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions, Gabriel Reynolds', The Qur'an and Its Biblical Subtext, George Archer's, A Place Between Two Places: The Qur’anic Barzakh, and Tommaso Tesei's (2015) “Some Cosmological Notions from Late Antiquity in Q 18:60–65: The Quran in Light of Its Cultural Context,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 135(1): 19–32.
Thank you for this study which connects with my own paper on paradise.
The parable in Luke 16 states that the rich man, after his death, is in 'hades' (v23). Do you connect hades in the parable to the barzakh state that you refer to on page 6? Is 'barzakh' a good translation for 'hades' in Luke 16:23 in Arabic and languages influenced by Arabic and Islam?
Thank you very much for your comment and question. I would not translate "hades" for "barzakh." The best translation of "hades" might be "hell," while the "barzakh" is the translation for "chasma" (chasm) in the Parable.
The word "hades" in Greek refers to the world of the dead, and so translating it into Arabic with a word referring to the place of final torment (النار، جهنم ) is not accurate. The rich man in the story is in the intermediate state...in torment, yes, but not in the final place of punishment. This would be consistent with Islamic worldview that says that people in the intermediate state can experience rest and comfort, or torment, depending on what their final fate is to be.
@Larry Ciccarelli Agreed. The Qur'an does not have a special term for the intermediate state, as in the Hebrew "sheol." In Q. 40:46, those tormented in the intermediate state are brought before the fire (النار). While Muslim tradition uses the term "barzakh" for such intermediate state, Q. 23:100 uses "barzakh" to mean a chasm/barrier that is behind them, consistent with the other Qur'anic uses of the term as a barrier between two different types of sea.
Thank you, Abdulla, for an interesting paper. Does barzakh as "barrier" in the Qur'an apply both to movement and to communication? I note that in Luke 16:26, the chasma prevents movement (those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us), but the rich man is still able to communicate with Abraham. I realize that barzakh is not easily translatable, but does reading Luke 16 through the lens of barzakh illumine the passage, or does doing so introduce a concept that is foreign to it?
Thanks Steven for an important question. In Q. 7, where a barrier exists between those in heaven and those in hell, two-way communication is allowed between them (e.g., Q. 7:44, 7:50). The same is found about the barrier in Q. 57:13-14, which allows for communication as well. Therefore, I think it does not necessarily introduce a different concept.
I hope to get some new insights from this presentation because we have drafted this passage in our language but have not yet published it. So we could make some changes (if necessary) after making new discoveries about this story.
Thank you for these insights. It is interesting to see the parallels that you uncovered. I'd like to suggest a different point of view and then have your input on whether this would encourage identification of more parallels. Given that this is a parable, it is meant to evoke an emotional response and challenge us to change wrong attitudes. This particular one is the last in a series of five in chapter 16 - there are linguistic and thematic links that demonstrate this. All five talk about attitudes towards wealth and the socio-economically disenfranchised. Those privileged by the status quo should not ignore the needy in society. Jesus tells this parable so that his listeners are confronted with the implications of their disregard for the basic demands of the law and the prophets. If we read this parable as the climax of this section, the chasm then becomes a metaphor for the irrevocability of God's decision regarding one's fate and challenges the listeners to change while they still can. From Jesus' perspective, ultimately the gospel of the Kingdom of God makes a more radical demand than the law and the prophets. If we took this as another way of reading this parable, does this open up more avenues for engagement between Christianity and Islam or even between our Scriptures?
Thanks, Liz. I think it can be much more fruitful to engage with the overall framework of a passage than with its details . . . . and necessary to do that at some stage if we are to get any real people-to-people engagement.
Thanks Elizabeth for this wonderful comment.
In the parable of the camel passing through the eye of the needle, for example, which the Qur'an uses almost verbatim, the Qur'anic concern is also to diminish the weight of worldly luxuries and this life for something more important in the hereafter. The Qur'an also interprets the camel parable by equating the wealthy from the Gospel parable to generally those who are arrogant of God's signs.
I am not certain what you mean by this parable asking for something more than simply the law and the prophets. For example, the Mishnah (the Jewish rabbinic literature that predates the Talmud) has an interesting interpretation of the Shema' passage (Hear O Israel the Lord our God the Lord is One. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might), which the Gospels in several instances considers the most important law. The Mishnah interprets "with all your soul" meaning even if and when you die. The Mishnah also interprets "with all your might" meaning "with all your wealth."
The message of Jesus would, therefore, not be very different than how some of the Jews would have understood the message of the Shema, that is to give away their wealth and even be ready to die for God. Jesus emphasizes to give away all wealth and be ready to carry their cross and follow him. I would imagine Jesus' audience would have been able to relate to his message concerning the wealthy, as it would not be foreign to them.
Thanks for this. I am greatly enriched by your feedback. My idea was that given John's purpose and how his gospel points to Jesus, the motivation for doing so would then go beyond the law and the prophets.
I can see that in the Gospel of John, but in the Lukan parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus, I am not sure if the text suggests that, as it does not discuss Jesus himself.
Yesterday, I half-jokingly drew a parallel between the great wall of China and the barrier described in Luke 16. I might add a reference to Joshua 2:15 in the Hebrew Bible where it is said that Rahab had her house 'on' or 'into' the wall of the city.
Of course, the whole point of the story is that both Bible and Qur'an agree that there will be a last day of Judgement and that we should do things in this life to have a good outcome there. It means we should live now according to the will of God as revealed in the scriptures. For Luke, social justice is an important part of that. In the New Testament as a whole, this points to the centrality of the person of Jesus and relating to him.
Thank you very much for this beautiful comment
'Something more than the law and the prophets . . . ' There is something important going on here. Is the Gospel adding 'something more' or 'something different'? Or is it that Jesus IS the whole of the law and the prophets? At the transfiguration (yes, I see that as somehow summarising the whole of who Jesus is), Jesus speaks with Moses and Elijah and then we see only Jesus. I see Moses and Elijah caught up into Jesus rather than replaced by Him. They are caught up into the glory together, but so glorious is Jesus that Moses and Elijah fade . . . The glory of the law and the prophets is the reflected glory of the glory of Jesus.
Thanks Ida