Le Fanatisme Ou Mahomet Le Prophète: Tragédie

by Voltaire, Jean Humbert

Le Fanatisme Ou Mahomet Le Tragedie (Fanaticism or Mahomet the Tragedy) is a play written by the famous French philosopher and writer, Voltaire. It was first published in 1743 and is considered one of his most controversial works. The play is set in the 7th century and focuses on the life of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, and his followers. The play explores themes of religious fanaticism, political power, and the dangers of blind faith. It portrays Muhammad as a manipulative and power-hungry leader who uses religion to control his followers and gain political power. The play also criticizes the violent and oppressive nature of Islamic law and the treatment of women in Islamic societies.Le Fanatisme Ou Mahomet Le Tragedie caused a lot of controversy when it was first published, as it was seen as an attack on Islam and Muhammad. Voltaire was accused of blasphemy and faced criticism from both religious and political authorities. However, the play was also praised for its critique of religious fanaticism and its promotion of reason and tolerance.Overall, Le Fanatisme Ou Mahomet Le Tragedie is an important work in the history of French literature and philosophy. It continues to be studied and debated by scholars and readers today.This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the old original and may contain some imperfections such as library marks and notations. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions, that are true to their original work.

Genres: Fiction, 18th Century, Theatre, Plays, France, Classics, Religion

140 pages, Paperback

First published April 25, 1741

About the author

Complete works (1880) : https://archive.org/details/oeuvresco...

In 1694, Age of Enlightenment leader Francois-Marie Arouet, known as Voltaire, was born in Paris. Jesuit-educated, he began writing clever verses by the age of 12. He launched a lifelong, successful playwriting career in 1718, interrupted by imprisonment in the Bastille. Upon a second imprisonment, in which Francois adopted the pen name Voltaire, he was released after agreeing to move to London. There he wrote Lettres philosophiques (1733), which galvanized French reform. The book also satirized the religious teachings of Rene Descartes and Blaise Pascal, including Pascal's famed "wager" on God. Voltaire wrote: "The interest I have in believing a thing is not a proof of the existence of that thing." Voltaire's French publisher was sent to the Bastille and Voltaire had to escape from Paris again, as judges sentenced the book to be "torn and burned in the Palace." Voltaire spent a calm 16 years with his deistic mistress, Madame du Chatelet, in Lorraine. He met the 27 year old married mother when he was 39. In his memoirs, he wrote: "I found, in 1733, a young woman who thought as I did, and decided to spend several years in the country, cultivating her mind." He dedicated Traite de metaphysique to her. In it the Deist candidly rejected immortality and questioned belief in God. It was not published until the 1780s. Voltaire continued writing amusing but meaty philosophical plays and histories. After the earthquake that leveled Lisbon in 1755, in which 15,000 people perished and another 15,000 were wounded, Voltaire wrote Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne (Poem on the Lisbon Disaster): "But how conceive a God supremely good/ Who heaps his favours on the sons he loves,/ Yet scatters evil with as large a hand?"

Voltaire purchased a chateau in Geneva, where, among other works, he wrote Candide (1759). To avoid Calvinist persecution, Voltaire moved across the border to Ferney, where the wealthy writer lived for 18 years until his death. Voltaire began to openly challenge Christianity, calling it "the infamous thing." He wrote Frederick the Great: "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world." Voltaire ended every letter to friends with "Ecrasez l'infame" (crush the infamy — the Christian religion). His pamphlet, The Sermon on the Fifty (1762) went after transubstantiation, miracles, biblical contradictions, the Jewish religion, and the Christian God. Voltaire wrote that a true god "surely cannot have been born of a girl, nor died on the gibbet, nor be eaten in a piece of dough," or inspired "books, filled with contradictions, madness, and horror." He also published excerpts of Testament of the Abbe Meslier, by an atheist priest, in Holland, which advanced the Enlightenment. Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary was published in 1764 without his name. Although the first edition immediately sold out, Geneva officials, followed by Dutch and Parisian, had the books burned. It was published in 1769 as two large volumes. Voltaire campaigned fiercely against civil atrocities in the name of religion, writing pamphlets and commentaries about the barbaric execution of a Huguenot trader, who was first broken at the wheel, then burned at the stake, in 1762. Voltaire's campaign for justice and restitution ended with a posthumous retrial in 1765, during which 40 Parisian judges declared the defendant innocent. Voltaire urgently tried to save the life of Chevalier de la Barre, a 19 year old sentenced to death for blasphemy for failing to remove his hat during a religious procession. In 1766, Chevalier was beheaded after being tortured, then his body was burned, along with a copy of Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary. Voltaire's statue at the Pantheon was melted down during Nazi occupation. D. 1778.

Voltaire (1694-1778), pseudónimo de François-

Reviews

[Czarny Pies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before Charlie Hebdo there was Voltaire. Truly "Fanatacism, or Mahomet the Prophet" first performed in 1742 is a great classic in the genre of works intended to offend religious sensibilities. Mahomet is presented as a satanic lecher. He kidnaps two children (a boy and a girl) of a political enemy. When they he grow up he tricks the boy into murdering his biological father. He lusts after the daughter whom he intends to add to his harem but she avoids this fate through suicide. The play closes with the following lines from Mahomet:

"Je dois régir en Dieu l'univers prevenu
Mon empire est detruite, si l'homme est reconnu."

"I must rule as God. My empire will be lost
if the people ever see me for the man that I am."

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the English translation. The play is excellent critique of religious and political fanaticism. It takes shots at both Christianity and Islam, and few at the King of France.

[Javid Jafarov · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite the title, this book is more about criticism of Christianity than Islam.

[Kitty Red-Eye · Rating 3 out of 5]

Europe, around 1740: An author who wants to critizise the Church, must make a fable about Islam in order to do it. The Church still wants to stop the play.

Smirking slightly, I'm imagining someone doing that today. The Church is used to being made fun of, it has no real power and with a few exceptions, they don't really care. But in 2005, muslims in France demand that the play be stopped in a theatre in Saint-Genis-Pouilly.

No, the play doesn't paint a pretty picture of "Mahomet", but it was never about him in the first place. It was to show what religious fanatics can do. I think the world needs more Voltaire. Respect to a man who manages to provoke people - more than 250 years after his time.

The Wikipedia article is ok, should anyone be interested in some background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahomet_...

[Yasserus · Rating 4 out of 5]

تُظهر لنا المسرحية الجوانب القذرة للاديان ومؤسسيها بمثال مناسب للموضوع وهو "محمد" الطاغية المتجبر احد اجرم الشخصيات على مر التاريخ ولا اعتقد ان فولتير قد بالغ في وصفه بالمجرم الأفاك الشهواني من خلال المسرحية وهي فعلاً هذه صفاته الحقيقية المعروفة تاريخياً، على العموم نلاحظ ان الصلاعمة يقومون بالترقيع والدفاع عن فولتير بحجج تافهة مثل ان فولتير كان قصده ضرب السلطة المسيحية الخ وحتى لو سلمنا جدلاً بذلك فهو ضرب مثال بأكثر رجل شرير في نظره وأفضل مثال لتجسيد الشر اي اصبح نبيكم مضرب مثل في الأفعال الدنيئة والغير إنسانية ثم لماذا اصلاً الترقيع لفولتير ؟ اه نعم انها عقدة الخواجة عندهم فهم عبيد الغرب، نلاحظ ايضًا ان المسرحية قائمة على قصة زيد وزينب واليوم عندما ننتقد على ارض الواقع هذه القصة يرد الصلاعمة بأنها شبهة جديدة ومن هذا الكلام الترقيعي لكن الحقيقة ان المسرحية اثبتت ان اي شخص في اي عصر كان عندما يقرأ القرأن بعقلية نقدية سينفر ويشمئز من قصة اغتصاب محمد لزينب وتحريم التبني.

[Zainab Alkurmanji · Rating 2 out of 5]

كتاب مسرحي قصير من 50 صفحة
من الواضح عدم اطلاع الكاتب الكافي على حادثة زيد ومحمد وتبادلهم زينب كانها قطعة ملابس
تم ادخال شخصية لا داعي لها وهو الزبير حيث ان الزبير وقت حادثة زيد كان على الاغلب ميت وقت فتح مكة
اضافة انه تم تصوير زيد وزينب على انهم ابناء الزبير وهذا غير صحيح فزيد كان ابن محمد بالتبني ولكنه الغى تبنيه حتى يتزوج زينب
الخطا الاخر هو جعل زيد قاتلا للزبير وهو خطا تاريخي اخر
ربما اراد اضافة بعد الاحداث الدرامية الزائدة للقصة واضفاء عامل التشويق من اجل الاداء المسرحي لانها اساسا مكتوبة لتكون مسرحية
ولكن اساسا قصة محمد مع زيد وزينب فيها من الدراما الكافي
وكان بامكانه استغلال القصة الاصلية لجعل المسرحية مشوقة بدون العبث بالتاريخ

[Boujemaa · Rating 1 out of 5]

Didn't like since the first page

[Rah · Rating 3 out of 5]

je me suis bien amusée lisant cette pièce, quoiqu'elle n'ait aucune relation avec un évènement historique , ni avec la personnalité réelle du prophète ,
je suis élevée en une société musulmane ( quoi que je me considère convertie) , je trouve que Voltaire a donné une impression un peu rude de Mahomet, , un peu traitre ( trahissant ce qu'il est venu apprendre ) , et surtout égoïste , ( en désirant avoir Palmire pour lui ) .. et tout ces faits n'ont rien à voir avec ce qu'on nous a appris lorsqu'on était petit .. on nous a toujours dit que Mahomet était rayonnant de tendresses, compassion, amour, et qu'il préférait le bien aux autres , que de l'obtenir à lui ... en dehors de ça, j'adore la tragédie (y), des évènements parfaitement enchainés, laissant deviner ( chérir ) la suite, et elle est pleine de suspense !

j'ai beaucoup surligné d'expressions/ citations qui m'ont plues , Or je ne fais références, qu'au deux qui m'ont touché personnellement :

" trop de respect souvent mène à l'ingratitude " .

" Redoutez des liens formés par l' imprudence.
Le crime quelquefois suit de près l' innocence.
Le coeur peut se tromper ; l' amour et ses douceurs
pourront coûter, Palmire, et du sang et des pleurs "

[That Flute Player · Rating 1 out of 5]

As a Muslim I've purposely read books that are highly controversial to Muslims. Salman Rushdie's 'The Satanic Verses' is just one example. But Rushdie is nowhere near as bad as Voltaire's 'Mahomet.'
Anyone with an intellect will know that Voltaire's depiction of Muhammed is the Frenchman's own fantasy and is not based on any historical evidence. A quick look in the quran , hadiths or even a Google search will point out several inaccuracies in this play.
I know Voltaire was actually showing fanaticism in France, but why did he have to pick a real figure? Surely it would have been more affective to write about Jesus. Instead Voltaire just catered to the public's already existing prejudices.
If you're genuinely looking for a TRUE story about Muhammad (S.A.W) I seriously do not recommend this play. It's full of factual errors and might as well be about a different person. Try and find a biography that has actually been approved by renowned Islamic scholars. If you're a Islamaphobe who wants to add more fuel to your hate then I wholeheartedly recommend this play to you.

[M. I · Rating 3 out of 5]

هو عمل كلاسيكي من نوع الأعمال التي تهدف إلى الإساءة إلى المشاعر الدينية. يتم تقديم محمد على أنه فاسق شيطاني. يخطف طفلين (صبي وفتاة) من عدو سياسي. عندما يكبر ، يخدع الصبي ليقتل والده البيولوجي. يشتهي البنت التي ينوي إضافتها إلى حريمه لكنها تتفادى هذا المصير بالانتحار.

[Fathy · Rating 2 out of 5]

مسرحية "محمد" - ڤولتير

انهيت يوم الجمعة ١٥-٧-٢٠٢٢ قراءة مسرحية "محمد - التعصب" للكاتب و الروائي الفرنسي ڤولتير. المسرحية كتبت في عام ١٧٣٦ و تم تمثيلها علي المسرح في فرنسا عام ١٧٤١. في الحقيقة المسرحية لا تمط للاحداث التاريخية الحقيقية بصلة و تظهر علي نحو واضح ندرة و قلة المعلومات المتوفرة للكاتب عن الاسلام و نبي الاسلام و اشخاص الصحابة. مبدأيا فهو إختار "عمر" الرجل الثاني في الاسلام و كمساعد للنبي و جعل سيد مكة اسمه الزبير و ان النبي كان يهيم حباً بزينب بنت الزبير في حين كانت هي تحب زيد الذي هو في الحقيقة أخوها و هذا جهل واضح و بيّن بأحداث التاريخ.

استفزتني الحدوتة دي فذهبت للبحث علي الانترنت فوجدت ان الرجل في اواخر ايام حياته اعترف بفضل النبي صلي الله عليه و اله و سلم علي البشرية و اعتذر عما كتبه مبررا ذلك بأنه كان ينتقد السلطات الدينية المسيحية في بلاده بإسقاط النقد علي الاسلام خوفا من السلطة الدينية الكنسية و دليل علي ذلك ان الكنيسة نفسها صادرت الكتاب عند صدوره.

القصة تدور حول محمد (من وجهة نظر الكاتب وليس سيدنا محمد صلي الله عليه و اله و سلم كما نعرفه نحن المسلمين) الذي يحاول عقد صلح مع الزبير سيد مكة تمهيداً لفتحها رغم انهما يضمرا الشر كل منهما للاخر و يبادلا بعضهما الاحتقار فيرفض الزبير الصلح و الخضوع للنبي الذي قتل ابنه و ابنته في حين قتل هو ابن النبي انفاً. 🙄
يطلب النبي ( في القصة) من زيد قتل الزبير العنيد و يوعده بمكافأة له ان يزوجه بزينب التي تربت و كبرت الي جواره في حين يخطط مع عمر لقتل زيد لاحقا و الزواج من زينب الجميلة. بمرور القصة نفهم ان خادم النبي و اسمه "عرفجة" قد اختطفهما من الزبير بأمر من النبي. 😏 بالطبع الزبير اعتقد ان اولاده ماتوا في حين ان اولاده نشأوا جنبا الي جنب في صحبة النبي فاصبحوا يقدسونه و لكن "عرفجة" يفشي هذا السر علي فراش الموت. حاول زيد قتل الزبير لكن نفسه لم تطاوعه قتل هذا الرجل النبيل صاحب الاخلاق و لكن في النهاية يقتله و لحظة موت الزبير يصل "فنار" خادم الزبير و يخبرهم بالقصة التي سمعها من "عرفجة" و حين كذا يقرر زيد الانتقام من محمد وعمر و لكن عمر يقبض علي زيد بتهمة قتل سيد مكة. بعد انتشار القصة تقوم جموع الجماهير باخراج زيد من سجنه و تثور علي محمد و عمر فيقوم محمد بالتصدي لهم و يخبرهم انه هو من يتحدث باسم الله علي الارض و ان الارادة و القوة السماوية تدعمه فيقع زيد متأثرا بالسم الذي تجرعه في محبسه و يموت فيخبرهم محمد ان ذلك تصديقاً لما قاله لهم. حِينَئِذ و في ابلغ ايات اليأس و الحزن تستل زينب سيف أخيها و تقتل نفسها فيبكيها محمد لانه كان يحبها و يمني نفسه بها.
كما يظهر مما سبق فإن القصة مختلقة تماما و ان هذا ال"محمد" لا يمثل نبي الاسلام و حاشا لله أن يكون هذا من ذاك!
الملحوظة الاخيرة ان المترجم ترك اسم رمزي هو ابن المقفع و لم يترك اسمه الحقيقي علي الكتاب ربما بسبب خوفه من ترجمة مثل هذا النص الذي قد يؤجج مشاعر المسلمين و كراهيتهم سواءً للكاتب او للمترجم.

[OSCAR · Rating 5 out of 5]

Contrario al mes anterior, que fue bastante estéril en lecturas, éste parece ser justo lo contrario.

Ya había leído algunas otras obras de Voltaire; recuerdo una "Micromegas". No sé si ésta hablaba de un gigante que se deleitaba con ver las estupideces e idioteces de los filósofos. Con Voltaire uno únicamente puede reírse.

Contrario a otras obras teatrales del famoso ilustrado, ésta es difícil de hallar. Supongo que debe ser primero por exponer un viejo flagelo del mundo: el fanatismo, y segundo, por aludir a un personaje religioso, cuyos discípulos hacen sentir su influencia cada vez mayor en el mundo.

La obra, a mi parecer, muestra cómo la fobia antiislámica se secularizó: después de las rencillas religiosas, el moderno antiislamismo es de cuño secular. Para mí, esta obra de Voltaire ayudó a mantener el odio contra Mahoma y los musulmanes en general.

En la obra Mahoma es retratado no como un fanático sino como un enemigo de la República de la Meca, un enemigo público, que hay que conjurar. Esto es un resabio republicano. El profeta es un personaje maquiavélico que usa todo tipo de engaños y artimañas para dominar el mundo y sobreponerse ante el Concejo de la Meca. Mahoma busca vengar la muerte de su hijo a manos de Zophire, cuyos hijos a su vez, a secuestrado aquél.

Estos dos hijos: Palmira y Seide, serán relevantes durante la trama. El último es el ejemplo del fanático que es capaz de superar cualquier barrera moral para hacer la voluntad del gran profeta y de Dios mismo. Claro, durante la trama, las dudas lo asaltan y al final, Seïde consigue ver la luz y termina por atacar a su antiguo maestro. Sin embargo, Mahoma se deshace de su otrora discípulo. Al final, Mahoma mantiene s dominio pero pierde lo que más quería: a Palmira.

¡Sensacional final!

[محمد · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't see what is it that would make anyone be confused about the moral of the play. It's an obvious vindication aimed at islam's prophet Mohammad and his companions, and a clear attempt to debase his character and diminish his credibility, and to picture him as a brutal barbaric warmonger fraud. And to set opposite of him his enemies as the protectors of mecca, led by Zopir (Abo Soufian Bin Harb) who act as the voice of reason and as a courageous honest person that only backed away from Mohammad's path in hope to save his children.

The only part that may seem like a dig towards some fanatic christians is not even in the play itself, but in his letter to the king of Prussia, and it does not seem intended to be taken that way, since Voltaire have already criticized christians fanatics in the open in most of his major writings. And it's just a matter of criticizing a general aspect that Voltaire always stood opposite from which bound to exist in every social entity or collective, which is extremism.

"Upon the whole I shall think myself amply rewarded for my labor, if any one of those weak mortals, who are ever ready to receive the impressions of a madness foreign to their nature, should learn from this piece to guard themselves against such fatal delusions" page 7

Putting polemics aside, i have to rate this play highly based on its merit as a work of literature, it's a well written play that is mostly fiction, and have a flavor of greek tragedies towards the end.

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

Voltaire's play is notorious for its scabrous portrait of the Prophet, who here stands as a world-class Tartuffe, posing as a man of god and machinating to sate his own lusts. It's vaguely historical, based on the Prophet's enmity towards Abu Sofyan (here called Zophir), and on his marriage to his adopted son Zayd's wife Zaynab (here Seid and Palmira), all re-shaped to make a (hammered home) point about fanaticism and religious hypocrisy. It would be difficult to revive now, certainly because the subject matter would make a performance subject to protests and threats, but also because the French satirist's talents for drama, on this showing, were severely lacking. The play is talky, the characters are mostly one-dimensional, it's quite without wit or action. The most intriguing aspect is the portrait of Seid as a youth seduced into what we would now call an act of terror, under the malign influence of fanatical ideology. This has a certain psychological acumen and is startlingly relevant today. It would have to be radically adapted to make it actable.
Also interesting are the letters from and to Voltaire at the front of the play; in one he sets out his thoughts on the historical Mahomet, and in another he (surprisingly) sends the play to Pope Benedict XIV, and the two of them have quite a mutual admiration society going on.

[Haidar Canaan · Rating 3 out of 5]

لم يقل الكاتب انه يؤرشف او يؤرّخ للاسلام .. ليست كتاباً تاريخيّاً و انما وجهة نظر في الاسلام تعكس النظرة المتداولة في ذلك الزمن لدين يجهلونه..
لكن الصياغة الادبية و لو نظرنا للحبكة بعين الموضوعية و غيرنا الاسماء مثلا الى اي اسماء اخرى (كي لا تمس الحساسيات الدينية) لكانت مسرحيةً رائعة ذات حبكة جميلة ..
كيف امكن لطاغية ان يجعل ولدا يقتل اباه بتعتيم العيون و تغييب الحقيقة و كيف ان الفطرة الانسانية اعظم من اي اوامر كائنا من كان مُصدِرها
و كيف ان بعض الطغاة لن يتورعوا في سبيل الوصول الى ما يبتغون عن اي شيء مهما كانت دناسته ..

[image error]

[Hans · Rating 4 out of 5]

Voltaire was clearly atheist.
What great misdeeds are done in the name of religion.

[Mehdi · Rating 3 out of 5]

On est souvent surpris d'apprendre que, au XVIIIeme siecle, Voltaire etait surtout connu (et apprecie) en sa qualite de dramaturge. Aujourd'hui, a quelques exceptions pres, son theatre est tombe dans les oubliettes de l'Histoire litteraire. "Mahomet Le Prophete" entre dans cette categorie. La piece est neanmoins sulfureuse: apres quelques representations a Paris, elle fut interdite - les prelats ne s'y sont pas mepris, voyant dans cette oeuvre une critique a peine voilee de l'Eglise catholique. Si le message raisonne encore aujourd'hui, le style haut-en-couleurs tend vers le melodrame, tandis que les personnages sont figes dans une logique manicheenne. Somme toute, une lecture interessante qui nous force a nous interroger sur le rapport entre religion, pouvoir et libre-arbitre

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

A student decided he wanted to translate this work for an independent project, so I quickly read through it this weekend. Couldn't put it down. I tell ya, Voltaire knows what he's doing. An AMAZING tale of religion vs politics, the state vs. family, nature vs. nurture, and the question of what makes a good leader, and the sacrifices and sins necessary to become powerful. Be VERY careful, this does NOT paint a complimentary picture of Islam's most important prophet. Please keep in mind that this is a fiction, meant to help people look closely at their own government, not a blanket statement about what really happened during the formation of the first Islamic states.

[Joe]

If you read the book in French you can appreciate the poetry, lost in translation. It is fiction - not history - as Voltaire says in the intro. It is meant to show the insanity of extremism, no matter what the religion (or superstition as Voltaire would call it), and in this sense, it is ageless.

[Lulu]

1736


trans. James Miller 1777

[ملاك]

لا اعلم ماذا كانت غاية فولتير من هذه المسرحية لقد حيرني
إن كانت غايته تشويه صورة نبينا محمد عليه الصلاة و السلام فمن السخافة أن تسعى لتغيير حقائق تاريخية عن سيرته لتجعلها بالشكل الذي تريده و يخدم اغراضك التشويهية
و إن كان يريد ان يعرض مثالا عن سيطرة الدين على تصرفات الاشخاص كما حصل لدى زيد الذي قتل الزبير و ان بعض رجال الدين همهم تحقيق مصالحهم من سلطة و رئاسة و نساء بمختلف الوسائل حتى لو كانت حراما لكنها مستترة تحت غطاء قدرات سماوية كاذبة فقد استطاع ذلك...
لكن لم يكن من الصواب استخدام اسم النبي محمد عليه الصلاة و السلام و تشويه افعاله و دينه بهذه الطريقة!