Talk:Mahomet (play)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Theatre Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has some serious problems - the play is well known in its time and today to be an oblique attack on Christianity - and uses Muhammad to avoid problems of the strong censor in effect prior to the Revolution. Jayran 18:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section is still needing further development but I added some references, cleaned up outright mistakes and removed some of the undue weight given to its perceived anti-Islamic stance. Jayran 18:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no , it is not an oblique attack on Christianity , but a direct attack on Islam , as Voltaire himself has stated in his letters to Benedict XIV and to FRÉDÉRIC II of Prussia. The intent could not be any clearer , and I am afraid that any other interpretation after a direct explaination by the author is indefensible. --CltFn 19:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you deleted several academic sources and a major French literary magazine, with which you disagree with, I am reverting to their opinion and analysis. It is no secret that Voltaire among others used the the "Other" to critique contemporary France and French mores. This was done by Voltaire in Zadig, Diderot in Supplement au voyage de Bougainville, Montesquieu in Lettres Persanes, and de Graffigny in Lettres d'une Peruvienne to name a few. The historical context was that the French government and Church had a strong censor that made it impossible to critique outright the government or Catholicism. Even a basic understanding of Voltaire would make this obvious and his somewhat cynical attitude to writing a letter to a pope. One of the articles I used refers to it as surprising. Also, Voltaire's attitude towards the East if far more complex than your version lets on - one need only read Candide, which he published under a pseudonym to see this. Jayran 19:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in terms of sources , I believe the authors direct statement overides any other sources , which you seem to have deleted in the process.--CltFn 19:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand the historical context of what he was saying, don't vandalize the article. If academics and audiences at the time of its debut knew what the play was saying, don't delete sourced info. The play was attacked by priests for its blasphemy in France when it debuted. Audiences knew that Muhammad was a symbol for Christ. Academics point to this in defense of the play. Jayran 19:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO not talk about vandalism when you delete the direct explanation by the author himself and then quote someone else in direct contradiction to the author. Your use of generalities like "academics" , "Audiences" , "priests " in your statement obscure the truth of the matter. The play was performed throughout France from 1750 onwards , it was only stopped for a few years.Furthermore the reference you cite do not state what you say, but actually supports what I had written so you are actually providing FALSE text to the article--CltFn 19:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really - have you read any source on this? The play was banned shortly after its debut for its strong anti-Catholicism - this came from its audiences, the reaction from priests at the time, and the court. The ban was only lifted in 1751 after Voltaire wrote a letter to the Pope that has been described more than once as a cynical act. If academic consensus agrees that this play is an attack on Christianity rather than Islam, do not delete it. Voltaire is famous for his anti-Christianity - just because you, going by your edits, have a strong disliking of Islam doesn't mean that you have to subject everything to that view. It is not my, nor anyone else's problem if you do not understand the mores of French literature prior to the French Revolution. Here are the relevant quotes from Lire - "Le fanatisme ou Mahomet le prophète est une charge contre l'islam et, plus largement, contre toute religion monothéiste." "Voltaire ne prétendit jamais faire œuvre d'historien; il se savait tragédien." "Une charge contre l'islam, oui. Mais aussi contre toute forme d'impérialisme. La preuve que la littérature, lorsqu'elle est grande, ne vieillit jamais." Jayran 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The play was performed in the Théâtre de Dijon in 1750 so right of the bat you got the date wrong. The reference you cited , does not mention the word Christianity but monotheisme. Actually the title of the play says fanaticism. Furthermore as I have said before Voltaire explicitely clarified the fact that the play is a criticism of Mahomet and fanaticism, and that belongs in the intro. I see you keep repeating the generalities audiences , priests , court. The pope gave the play his go ahed in 1750 and that was the end to that.--CltFn 20:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider Tobin, publishing in an academic journal more reliable than you and he provides 1751. Provide a source for it being performed in Dijon in 1750. Academics consider Voltaire's letter as disingenous and still see it is a veiled attack on Christianity. I'll repeat what academics say as they are by far the most qualified sources on this - and they cite the reaction of audiences and religious figures. Jayran 20:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Performed in Dijon in 1750 [1]. No academic 3 centuries later can contradict historical primary sources. In the case of his letter to Benedict , the author himself is a secondary source to himself .If you want to say that such and such academic is advancing some sort of theory then state it as that.However your statement saying that its an allusion to Jesus is absolute nonsense as the play does not parallel any any scrap of Jesus' life. Furthermore , the reference does not even say that--CltFn 21:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Voltaire was using Muhammad as a surrogate for Christ. I suggest that it was in this way that Voltaire was able to escape censorship and chip away at the foundation of Christianity" - per Joubin - and this is a standard academic view of the work. Why else do you think this play was banned? Voltaire knew fully what he was doing as this almost every academic source on ancien regime France will mention the use of non-French people or things to critique France or things dear to the French elite in literature. Do you have a rs for the 1750 date in Dijon? No other source gives it but more than one gives 1751. Bosworth in Henri de Bornier's Mahomet also gives 1751 as the first date it was performed after the ban in 1742. The German edition of wikipedia, while not a reliable source, also gives 1751. Once I find the entirety of Voltaire's letters, I will add it as he tells his friend that he made Muhammad more evil than he is in reality for his play and that Muhammad, in his view, was an apostle of tolerance and brotherhood - the latter comes from 1751 after it was first staged after the lifting of the ban. Most scholars and commentators see the play as an attack on Christianity - even conservative politicians (who for some reason pop up in Google Scholar such as Sean Gabb say "His tragedy, Mahomet, poses as an attack on Islamic fanaticism. Its real object, everyone knew, was the Christian variety." Jayran 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should quote the first part of the sentences that you conveniently omit.--CltFn 23:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Given what is known about Voltaire's contempt for Christianity and considering the

necessity of subterfuge to express any criticism of religion, it is likely that Voltaire was using Muhammad as a surrogate for Christ." Her words aren't being twisted - but you are using Voltaire's work for your own purposes. If you have an ax to grind against Islam, do it somewhere else. The play is clearly anti-Islamic - I and no scholar I quote will argue against that BUT the work is recognized as a veiled attack on Christianity. Have you read any of the other works of literature I listed above - they all use the "Other" to critique French mores. This was common practice prior to the Revolution - and Joubin also says that. Jayran 23:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually , she is openly admitting that what she is saying is conjecture, thus is hardly a worthy statement to add to the article. What you are also saying is conjecture , ie a veiled attack against Christianity. The fact is that Voltaire has openly said that this is not the case , that the play is ONLY directed at Mahomet and Fanaticism. By the way , have you read the play , yourself? I have linked it at the bottom of the page --CltFn 23:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the play years ago but it fits the same mold as Lettres Persanes, Zadig, and other Enlightenment works that use the "Other" to critique France. Several scholars that I have sourced have viewed the letter to the Pope as tongue-in-cheek - this is no secret in the world of French literature as is the play being a critique of Christianity. Jayran 23:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no need to include all the anti-Islamic words of Voltaire at the time. Should the article also include his rather more positive (comparably) view he took towards Islam afterwards? The play is known to be anti-Christian tract disguised in the garb of Islam - here are a sampling of major newspapers that say this also. The NY Times [2], the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [3], al-Ahram of Egypt - [4], the Wall Street Journal [5], and the Guardian [6] This isn't a debate - I fail to see why you oppose making it obvious that the play isn't truly an attack on Muhammad but rather Christianity. Jayran 02:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the Earl of Chesterfield as non-notable is ridiculous. He was a British MP, Secretary of State, ambassador to Brussels, and mingled with Enlightenment figures. He was writing to a major French author of the time and the Earl knew Voltaire. His views are a representation of what people at the time thought of the play. His reading of the play is pretty much near the standard interpretation. Jayran 04:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the letter correctly , you would see that the Earl is saying that this is was in own opinion an opinion which was not shared by others and which perceived the play as an treating Mahomet as the imposter and enemy of Christianity. So lets not then take that to describe the play as being about what it was not. If you want to say in the analysis section that the Earl said it was his opinion , while remarking that the audiences perceived the play as Voltaire 's title described it then go ahead --CltFn 11:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand anything to do with this play when it comes to scholarship or reactions to it. The play is anti-Christian - this is not debated as even mainstream publications will invariably mention this. Modern scholarship and reactions from the time both point out that Mahomet was a stand-in for Jesus. Using non-Christian and non-French people or things to symbolize Christian or French people and symbols was common practice in that era. Why do you think this play was quietly banned for nearly a decade? (Educated) audiences and (educated) priests saw through the claim that this was a play only about Muhammad - he makes this clear with the mention of the fervent Catholic. He also later writes in the same letter that, "Je doute fort s'il est permis à un homme d'écrire contre le culte et la croyance de son pays, quand même il serait de bonne foi persuadé qu'il y eût des erreurs, à cause du trouble et du désordre qu'il y pourrait causer." This isn't a serious debate in scholarship. Jayran 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ , the work is aimed at fanatism and Mahomet as this statement from Voltaire confirms:

Votre Majesté sait quel esprit m’animait en composant cet ouvrage; l’amour du genre humain et l’horreur du fanatisme, deux vertus qui sont faites pour être toujours auprès de votre trône, ont conduit ma plume. J’ai toujours pensé que la tragédie ne doit pas être un simple spectacle qui touche le coeur sans le corriger. Qu’importent au genre humain les passions et les malheurs d’un héros de l’antiquité, s’ils ne servent pas à nous instruire? On avoue que la comédie du Tartuffe, ce chef-d’oeuvre qu’aucune nation n’a égalé, a fait beaucoup de bien aux hommes, en montrant l’hypocrisie dans toute sa laideur; ne peut-on pas essayer d’attaquer, dans une tragédie, cette espèce d’imposture qui met en oeuvre à la fois l’hypocrisie des uns et la fureur des autres? Ne peut-on pas remonter jusqu’à ces anciens scélérats, fondateurs illustres de la superstition et du fanatisme, qui, les premiers, ont pris le couteau sur l’autel pour faire des victimes de ceux qui refusaient d’etre leurs disciples?

Furthermore if you want to see what Voltaire thought of Mahomet or the Qur'an read this and compare to what he wrote about Christianity . Your theory that Voltaire was critisising Christ is certainly not supported by Voltaires own writing and essays on the topic.--CltFn 03:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made section header and section param in RFCxxx template the same. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is placed for comment regarding placement of a quote by Voltaire in the intro and the use of academic sources in the article. Jayran 23:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where did Voltaire got his information regarding his play characters,, however Zaynab was his (Mohamed's) cousin, and she was married to Zayed after he was adopted and freed by Mohamed. Zayed divorced Zaynab on the background of their different social ranking at that time. Later according to Quaran Mohamed was ordered to marry her so that it wont be a tradition to muslims of not marrying the divorced who was a wife to their adopted son. Because according to Islam adoption is allowed in terms of guardianship and inheritance but an adopted child keeps her/ his surname. In the other hand Mohamed even by muslisms is not precieved as the founder of Islam, since muslims believes that Islam is the message of God to all his prophets, and to Muslims Mohamed was the last prophet who recieved the final revelations from God. Mohamed was known of acquating his critics not even that but the ones who tortured him and his followers. He acquaited the killer of his uncle after he was taken a war prisoner in one of the battels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deserttulip81 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have proof for this comment: "Muhammad's lechery prompted him to invent a commandment from Allah" ? First, one needs to prove intent to prove lechery. One must provide proof to support both claims: intent for lechery and invention of verses.

Moreover, the analysis section of the article is not a direct work of Voltaire or a published part of his play. As such, comments about lechery and the invention of verses in the Quraan are nothing but additional material added with subjective anti-Islamic undertones, meanwhile the article should describe the play and not add to it new material to give it juice.

Homiex (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't some mention be made of modern opposition to the performance of this play. The Wall Street Journal reports that in 2006 the play was cancelled from a cultural center event in San Genis Poully, France, because of complaints by Islamic activists. See: http://uniset.ca/terr/news/wsj_voltaire_mohammed.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.168.254 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is true that the foremost target of Voltaire's _Mahomet_ was the Catholic Church and fanatism in general. But it is certainly not true that Voltaire had a positive view on Islam as indicated by the quotes. He wrote to Frederick the Great, King of Prussia in 1740:

But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him.

Can be found here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.242.70 (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I basically agree with you, but for such a hot-potato topic as this article deals with, I think we should work out some consensus first before any drastic changes to this article; as a side note - but no offense intended, we Wikipedians sign our names at the end of talk page posts. Jamutaq (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is very stupid considering Voltaire held both positive and negative image of Muhammad. RussianDewey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_critics_of_Islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.87.234 (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you're input! I think it should be easy for me to find some good and reliable external sources to further support our agreed-upon point, but I would hesitate to change the article without them. Jamutaq (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there are many performances of Mahomet in Occidental countries or for that matter in secular Islamic-majority countries like Turkey or the Kazakhstan (though it was successfully performed quite recently in France), I'm not sure if countries elsewhere in the world - such as Japan, Thailand or India - feel freer to put on the play. Jamutaq (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]