Napoleon Bonaparte and his French troops invaded Egypt in 1798. In Egypt, he aggressively courted the Muslim population, saying to one imam: “Glory to Allah! There is no other God but Allah; Muhammad is his prophet, and I am one of his friends…. The Qur’an delights my mind…. I love the prophet.” He told Egyptian imams that it was “the will of Muhammad” that the Egyptians ally with the French. He denounced the Russians to the Ottoman sultan, saying that they “abhor those who believe in the unity of God, because, according to their lies, they believe that there are three,” an echo of the Qur’an’s warning to Christians to “say not ‘Three’” (4:171), that is, do not profess the faith in the Holy Trinity.
So was Napoleon a convert to Islam, or just one in the seemingly endless line of Islamopanderers who think they can attain their goals by flattering, appeasing, and accommodating Muslims? Find out in my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, which you can order here now. Extremely high demand has depleted stocks, but the book is being reprinted and will be available again soon; get your order in now.
Peter Buckley says
Napoleon a muslim. Hilarious. Reminds me of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poOwQH_MHm0&t=466s
What happened to all these “converts”? Hilarious……..
gravenimage says
+1
J D S says
Talk about FAKE NEWS …Let’s start a new slogan. Islam IS what it IS, Fake News!
Virginia Donovan says
I ordered The History of Jihad from Myhammad to ISIS, but it won’t arrive until Sept. 11. Can’t wait to get it!
Andrew says
Going by Andrew Roberts’ “Napoleon the Great”, widely acclaimed as the definitive biography, the answer is ‘no’. From chapter 7, Egypt, it seems clear that he was indulging in a prolonged charade to recruit allies against the Turks – at one point an officer is quoted as saying “the soldiers were politic in their expressions; when they returned to their quarters they laughed at the comedy”. Remind you of another military leader saying “war is deceit”?
duh swami says
Sounds like Nappy was preaching to the choir….Why would he do that?
Almost sounds like a DJ Trump method of behavior modification…
gravenimage says
So was Napoleon a convert to Islam, or just one in the seemingly endless line of Islamopanderers who think they can attain their goals by flattering, appeasing, and accommodating Muslims?
…………………….
Or might these Imams have simply made up a good part of this?
There is a long history of Mohammedans claiming that various figures of history were actually Muslims, from Alexander the Great through Napoleon to astronaut Neil Armstrong.
This last is my “favorite”–Armstrong supposedly heard the Adnan (Muslim call to prayer) on the moon and “reverted” to Islam immediately. The supposed proof of this was that on returning to earth that he “moved to a Muslim country”. Well, he did indeed move to Lebanon–but this was the town of Lebanon, Ohio, not the nation. (Never mind that Lebanon was about the least Muslim country in the Middle East after Israel–these Mohammedans did not have much to work with).
Certainly, Napoleon’s reported words are not just Islamophilic, but suspiciously canonical for someone who is supposed to a brand new convert.
The fact is that Napoleon was nominally Catholic, but he did not appear to practice the faith in any organized manner, if at all. (There are other complexities in his relationship with the Catholic Church, not worth going into here).
What he *did* recognize was the usefulness of religion to govern human societies. In other words, that his expressing respect for religion was a tool for keeping himself in power. To the extent that he actually did pander to the Imams, this was his likely aim.
Indiana Tom says
Pander Bear.
Charles says
Gravenimage: this reminds me of Napoleon returning home from a far-away battlefield and writing this quick note to his wife: “Don’t wash I am coming home!”
No Muzzies Here says
I don’t think so. Otherwise the French would not have named a type of Cognac after him.
Terry Gain says
Bloody Muhammad? I’d pour it into the toilet.
gravenimage says
Napoleon Brandy:
https://blog.cognac-expert.com/what-is-napoleon-cognac-brandy/
lebel says
Nope, he just didn’t think it was pure evil. That’s why you are slandering him essentially.
Napoleon was anti-clerical and believed in a strict separation of Church and State. It was him however who reopened the churches after many of them had been desecrated or/and closed following the revolution.
Wellington says
Wrong again, Lebel. You have taken upon yourself the reading of Napoleon’s mind, specifically that he thought Islam was not pure evil. In fact, Napoleon said (and I am paraphrasing here, not quoting verbatim), that in France he was a Catholic, in other part of Europe a Protestant, in Islamic lands a Muslim, and so on.
As Alexis de Tocqueville said of Napoleon, he was as great as a man could be without morality. This, of course, assuming de Tocqueville was eminently correct here (and to de Tocqueville’s credit he overwhelmingly got things correct time and time again, including his assessment of America), can only mean that Napoleon, immensely talented to be sure and a military genius, should never be taken at face value.
In keeping with whom you are, Lebel, you have taken Napoleon at face value. Fitting and damning at your expense, Lebel. Done here.
lebel says
“In fact, Napoleon said (and I am paraphrasing here, not quoting verbatim), that in France he was a Catholic, in other part of Europe a Protestant, in Islamic lands a Muslim, and so on.”
I think we are reaching a point where you feel you must disagree with me purely for ideological reasons. I don’t know how the following statement proves me wrong, I think someone who would see Islam as pure evil would be unlikely to be a “Muslim in Islamic lands” –
Whatever the case, my evidence comes from Vincent Cronin’s Napoleon, for example on p.151
“Napoleon had read the Qu’ran…and found it sublime”
So that tells me that he does not think it’s pure evil. Of course you will disagree because Lebel said it.
Wellington says
Well, Lebel, anyone reading the Koran and finding it sublime, has gotten matters wrong, whether Napoleon or anyone else. I have read the entire Koran, all 114 chapters (suras) and I find it to be the most nauseatingly repetitive, stupid, hateful, disgusting and silly religious work I have ever read.
Might as well tell me about someone who found Mein Kampf sublime as tell me anyone has found the Koran sublime.
Finally, so Cronin SAYS that Napoleon found the Koran sublime. Two issues here: 1) what does Cronin cite to assert this; and 2) far more important, even assuming Napoleon actually said he found the Koran sublime, this is so in keeping with Napoleon being whatever was necessary for him to be at a particular time and thus proves NOTHING since Napoleon was an able but extremely slippery fellow who should never be counted on to build a viable polity, contra the Founding Fathers of America, one of whom, Thomas Jefferson, remarked of the Koran that it is “demonic.”
Your turn.
mortimer says
Wellington is onto something: “Might as well tell me about someone who found Mein Kampf sublime as tell me anyone has found the Koran sublime.”
Napoleon was a master of opportunism who even kidnapped and then brainwashed the pope.
It is safe to say that Napoleon was AMORAL and only cared about his agenda of becoming EMPEROR OF EUROPE, rather than having any ethical concerns whatsoever.
His comments about Islam should be classified under the category of ‘OPPORTUNISM’ or even under the category of pure ‘BS’ by any thinking person.
Islam is an amoral, misogynistic, xenophobic DEATH CULT with opportunistic ethics from the BRONZE AGE.
Only a profoundly AMORAL and OPPORTUNISTIC person could appreciate Islam.
gravenimage says
Notice Vincent Cronin has no actual quote from Napoleon here.
gravenimage says
Wait–lebel is now claiming we are “slandering” Napoleon for daring to say that there is no historical indication that he was Muslim? Good grief…
byzantion says
In my copy of the Count of Monte Cristo (1844) several royalists mock Napoleon as the Mohammed of the west, due to his Fanatical followers.
Quite the amusing concept, but given new meaning with this information. It seems like we have devolved from a state of guarding against islam, but perhaps napoleon’s own example gives some lie to that idea.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
Napoleon said what he deemed necessary to assuage the locals; if that meant saying nice things about islam, so be it. He laughed when later asked if he had actually become a Muslim, explaining “As for me, I always adopt the religion of the country I am in.”
When he left Egypt, he put General Kleber in charge. When Kleber died, his place was taken by General Jacques Menou, who did convert to Islam, but apparently not out of any deep faith, but because he was smitten with a Muslim lady and wished to marry her.
Incidentally, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris is located on Avenue Kleber. There is an old-fashioned, very luxurious hotel — was it called Hotel Kleber? I can’t remember — on that Avenue Kleber, where in a previous life, long ago, I was allowed to stay, for free. The hotel management had the mistaken belief that I was an influential journalist and could help promote the hotel; I was nothing of the kind, but was not about to correct them.
Serge Gainsbourg used to play the piano there. Hepburn and Tracy carried on their affair at the hotel. And many Arabs visiting the Ministry of Foreign Affairs just down the street stayed there, including assorted Lebanese presidents and Jordanian prime ministers and, I think, Yassir Arafat with his German catamites .
Hugh Fitzgerald says
I should have pointed out above that Kleber was stabbed to death by Suleiman al-Halabi, a student at Al-Azhar.
gravenimage says
Grimly true, Hugh–I was just going to mention that.
Here’s a painting of the assassination:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Kl%C3%A9ber#/media/File:Assassination_of_Kleber_f4925505.jpg
Not one of the finest artistic examples of Napoleonic France, but interesting nonetheless. Its attribution here to Antoine-Jean Gros is almost certainly incorrect; he was a much finer painter than this. It may have come from his workshop, though.
DHazard says
Sometimes I wonder whether Muhammad doubted the effectiveness of his own yarn spinning. The Quran is written the way someone would if they were improvising it: God talks about himself in the third person and sometimes uses the royal “We”. The “for Muhammad only” verses in a book that purportedly predates time itself. The partial and muddled “reclaiming” of common Christian and Jewish, noncanonical stories, popular at the time of Muhammad’s “revelations”
But having slavishly devoted followers who would gladly kill for him was not enough for Muhammad. Christians and Jews had to pay for rejecting him so he created a war machine out of Islam and immediately sought vengeance. After the torture, rape, murder and enslavement of the once tolerated Jews he allowed a few who remained the “luxury” of living as whimsically taxed outsiders, the kind kids throw stones at. For some of these governments, the Jew and Christian tax was their main source of income. As these social victims inevitably converted to Islam, over time, this revenue dried up along with it’s enforcers.
What a strange dilemma – you count on the Jizyah but you are also required to convert everybody to Islam as well, So you increase the Jizyah but the response is more conversion to Islam and even less income. Sounds just like what happened in major US cities during the 60s and 70s (white flight).
gravenimage says
Good post.
Giacomo Latta says
Bang on.
lebel says
“Napoleon said what he deemed necessary to assuage the locals; if that meant saying nice things about islam, so be it. He laughed when later asked if he had actually become a Muslim, explaining “As for me, I always adopt the religion of the country I am in.””
It went much further than that. Egyptian Muftis went as far as describing Napoleon as God’s messenger and a friend of the prophet. Islam aside, Napoleon did a lot for Egypt and the locals took to calling him Sultan el Kebir.
Source: Vincent Cronin, Napoleon, p.152
gravenimage says
All this shows is that the sucking up cut both ways–currying favor with a conqueror is not, of course, necessarily a sign of actually liking someone.
And after all, a pious Muslim assassinated one of Napoleon’s successors.
kabooooooooooooooooom says
How many successors did Napoleon have gravystain?
gravenimage says
What a moron kabooooooooooooooooom is.
This is a reference to Jean-Baptiste Kléber. When Napoleon returned to France in 1799, he left Kléber in command of the French forces in Egypt. He was assassinated the following year by a pious Muslim.
The French were expelled a few years later–Muhammad Ali Pasha sized power in 1805.
None of this is particularly obscure.
mortimer says
So, Lebel, your quote suggests it was a pure case of ‘You scratch MY opportunistic, French back and I’ll scratch YOUR opportunistic Al Azhar backs.’
Klemens von Metternich, head of the Austrian government and therefore a sharp critic of Napoleon, reported that Napoleon viewed Catholicism in largely utilitarian, even cynical terms.
Napoleon did not deny the existence of God, virtue and honor; but he maintained that such sentiments had ever been the chief guide of any but those whom he called ‘dreamers’, His view of religion was, it seems, almost purely practical as a tool for him to rule society.
When facing death, people identify with the religion of their conscience, since their is no point in hiding their religion after death.
Napoleon was buried at Longwoods, St. Helena’s Island in a very plain Roman Catholic funeral.
gravenimage says
+1
StellaSaidSo says
Initially, Napoleon was buried at Longwood. Nine years later, in 1840, his remains were reinterred at Les Invalides in Paris.
Christine Ross says
5. “NAPOLEON AS CATECHIST. – For more than 2 years, Napoleon the Great, at S. Helena, taught the Catechism every day to the daughter of Gen. Bertrand, his faithful companion in captivity: and when she was old enough to make her First Communion, he procured a priest from France to continue the instructions and prepare her for that great act..
7. A SAYING OF NAPOLEON. – Entrusting his son to the care of Mme. de Montesquieu, Napoleon said to her: “Madame, to you I confide my son, on whom rests the destiny of France, and perhaps of the whole of Europe: make him a good Christian.” Someone laughed at this, but Napoleon, in anger, apostrophized him, saying: “Yes sir, I know what I am saying: my son must be a good Christian, or he will not be a good ruler.”
page 2, “Stories from the Catechist,” Very Rev. Canon G. E. Howe
DHazard says
Muslims will grab onto anything that might make their religion appear more legitimate. Otherwise they’re just a weird pseudo Christian/Jewish sect. God must be playing with them to test their moral standards, which is why, ISIS viewed not praying 5 times a day as a crime. By combining the Quran and the Hadith Muslims have a complete list of Do’s and Dont’s covering everything, or so they say . By combining their stories (from billions of people over hundreds of years) we now also have the ultimate truth. It’s finished. No more prophets. No new important information. If all the archaeologists, astronomers, anatomists, historians, dietitians, physicists, geologists, chemists and biologists got together and pointed out the flaws in the Quran, THEY would be wrong. In many places they would be labeled Islamophobes and kicked out of their professions. In other places they would be dead, either at the hands of Muhammad’s official slaves, or just one of the random ones who hate other people for being non-Muslim and happy.
Name dropping is not going to save Islam.
gravenimage says
Spot on, DHazard.
FYI says
More importantly….Was Napoleon Solo a muslim?the man from U.N.C.L.E?
I don’t think so…
gravenimage says
🙂
FYI says
Love that picture of Napoleon.He looks fed up.
“Why oh why did I invade Russia in 1812?
I mean…Who knew it was such a big country?And so c-c-c-cold”
tim gallagher says
A very witty comment, FYI. It’s certainly a weird pose alright. I don’t know whether it’s meant to show a profound thinker or something like that. I prefer you’re interpretation of it. I vaguely recall that Napoleon suffered from terrible problems with haemorrhoids and bowel problems, so maybe he is just in great pain and discomfort. When Napoleon said that he “loved the prophet”, I suspect he was probably saying he admired Muhammad as a successful military leader or something along those lines. But Napoleon and the social changes of the French Revolution that he spread through his conquests introduced some modern, enlightened ideas to some European societies, which is the opposite of anything that Islam has ever brought. Islam just drags societies it influences back to the dark ages.
tim gallagher says
A correction to my post. Of course I meant “your interpretation”, not “You’re interpretation”.
Voytek Gagalka says
Maybe he was not a Muslim himself but he kept Muslim as his personal bodyguard: Roustam Raza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roustam_Raza
gravenimage says
Voytek, there is no indication that Raza was actually Muslim. He was born in Tblisi to Armenian parents, and was kidnapped by Muslim slave traders. He may have seen entering Napoleon’s service as a way out of slavery.
Indeed, later he married a Frenchwoman in France, and had a son given the very French Infidel name of Achille.
Eur says
Personally, I’m not surprised. Muslims living in Spain often say similar things about Spanish historical figures. I have heard that Cervantes was a Muslim and that he was converted when he was imprisoned in Algiers and that the work Don Quixote hides that secret in the character of Cide Hamete Benengeli. It is incredible, but true, the Muslims are always saying this kind of barbarities.
gravenimage says
Very true.
ntesdorf@westnet.com.au says
Napoleon was a great opportunist, but in the end, Egypt, the Egyptians and Nelson at the Battle of Aboukir Bay was just too much for him and he had to retire back to Paris and Josephine. The story is probably a figment of some Imam’s imagination.
Joe says
On the way to Egypt, Neapolitan visited Malta where the Knights of St John welcomed him (they were mostly French). After pillaging the churches and palaces he departed for Alexandria but left a garrison behind to raise a new Maltese army made of the first born boy in each family. The Maltese revolted as they where farmers and depended on the strong young hands that Napoleon wanted. During his short stay in Malta he toured around the island and stopped to sleep at the “Armoury Palace” in the village of Zurrieq. He slept on a huge mahogany dining table, as the place was infested with rats. A bit of trivia here: My grandfather, who was a business man, heard about the table and later he bought it at auction. The table still has the mahogany frame but with a new modern top. True or not ?
lebel says
@wellington
I think there is enough evidence to make it unlikely that Napoleon thought Islam was pure evil. He did not convert of course but he admired it. Nothing wrong with that, not everyone was a snowflake back then 🙂
During his exile on St Helen he wrote about Mohamed :-Il a détruit les faux dieux, renversé le temple des idoles dans la moitié du monde, propagé plus que qui que ce soit la connaissance d’un seul Dieu dans l’univers… Mahomet fut un grand homme, intrépide soldat…. Grand capitaine, éloquent, homme d’État, il régénéra sa patrie et créa au milieu des déserts de l’Arabie un nouveau peuple et une nouvelle puissance. –
“since Napoleon was an able but extremely slippery fellow who should never be counted on to build a viable polity,”
On the contrary, quite a viable polity…had it not been for English treachery, We owe much to Napoleon, the Napoleonic code is just the beginning.
Speaking of sources, can we get one for the demonic quran by Jefferson?
Wellington says
Napoleon is owed, Lebel, a sincere belief in equality and even fraternity, but he is not owed in the least any love of liberty. What you call “English treachery” (and exactly how was the UK under someone like Pitt the Younger treacherous to one who wanted to control all of Europe?—please explain) was the greatest force in the world at that time, with all its faults, against the renewed absolutism and then some of what a previous French monarch, one Louis XIV, intended.
I can admire Napoleon’s abilities without admiring his intentions. I can admire William Pitt the Younger’s abilities while also admiring his intentions. In a world in which one could only choose between Napoleon ruling it or Pitt the Younger, no lover of liberty could possibly choose the former, irrespective of Pitt’s shortcomings.
I just doubled down, Lebel, and now it’s your turn.
gravenimage says
Fine post.
lebel says
“What you call “English treachery” (and exactly how was the UK under someone like Pitt the Younger treacherous to one who wanted to control all of Europe?—please explain) was the greatest force in the world at that time, with all its faults, against the renewed absolutism and then some of what a previous French monarch, one Louis XIV, intended.”
my evidence for English treachery:
Context: loss of colonies in 1776 – no way that England suffers another upstart Republic that has overthrown monarchy.
1. George III closes ranks with other Monarchs and welcomes French royalist to England, supports them financially and equips them to fight their fellow frenchmen
2. Napoleon proposed peace to England – notably via the Christmas message to George III – there is ample evidence that England never considered it “real” (the King did not bother replying to Napoleon).
3. Neither the King nor his Government wanted peace : “William Wickham wrote to Grenville in August 1800 that ‘I cannot help considering the keeping France engaged in a Continental war as the only certain means of safety for us, and as a measure to be brought about by us almost per fas et nefas, if the pushing another from the plank to save oneself from drowning can in any case be called nefarious.” Burke wrote to Grenville that ‘It is not the enmity but the friendship of France that is truly terrible. Her intercourse, her example, the spread of her doctrines are the most dreadful of her arms.’
4.They signed the peace treaty of Amiens in 1802 while England was harboring Napoleon’s enemies. as time passed England showed no signs of fulfilling the terms of the peace (evacuating Alexandria, troops in Malta). At the same time, England takes recognized steps towards war (levying thousands of additional men for the navy). This basically forces Napoleon into a corner – on March 22 1803 Grenvile tells buckingham: “‘Our government have so contrived things, that it is hardly possible for Bonaparte himself to recede, had he the wish to do so…If he now suffers himself to be intimidated by our preparations, he must lose all consideration both at home and abroad.”
Bottom line, England did not want peace with France while Napoleon wanted peace with England.
Wellington says
Again, Lebel, you managed to get things completely ass-backwards. England under Pitt and his successors (e.g., Percival and the Earl of Liverpool) understood that Napoleon was never to be trusted on the matter of peace or on anything.
America’s third President, the almost never equaled Thomas Jefferson, understood this too quite well, to such an extent that even though he was a Francophile and innately hostile to England, when once he learned in the early months of his Administration that France under Napoleon (who was then just First Consul and not yet Emperor) had acquired Louisiana Territory from Spain, said that if America had to wed itself to the British Fleet then this must be done in order to deprive Napoleon of even more territory and power. Following Jefferson’s sapient policy, later President Madison, who initially trusted Napoleon (e.g., Macon’s Bill #2—yeah, look this up), realized that he had been deceived by a grand deceiver.
Hope you get all this. Doubt you will.
gravenimage says
Another fine post, Wellington.
The fact is that Napoleon threatened most of Europe.
The European says
@Lebel
“On the contrary, quite a viable polity…”
The polity he created was rather short-lived, and it couldn’t be otherwise since almost all of Europe rose up against him: Austria, Spain, the German pricipalities, Prussia, Great Britain… He didn’t lose because of “English treachery,” his downfall was caused by his overreaching ambition and because the populations he had subdued were fed up with his wars, with conscription, with the heavy taxes he levied upon them and with overbearing French troops who had to be fed and sheltered by the inhabitants of conquered countries. Napoléon Bonaparte was a tyrant and he tried to establish a Kind of tyrannical monarchy, putting his brothers and cousins on the thrones of the countries that his armies had invaded.
gravenimage says
Very true.
gravenimage says
It is clear that Napoleon mostly admired Muhammed as a conqueror. This is a case of one tyrant admiring the success of another.
And of course lebel would consider defending against a tyrant to be “English treachery”. No surprise there.
As for Jefferson’s Qur’an, he read it to see what we were up against with the Barbary Pirates who were attacking our ships and enslaving our crews.
This is what Thomas Jefferson actually had to say about the Qur’an, in his queries to a Muslim ambassador:
“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they cold take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.”
The implication that anyone who owns a Qur’an loves that vicious tome is, of course, ridiculous. I own several editions of the Qur’an myself.
esther says
I have a whole bunch of korans—-the first I actually read was the Pickthal version—–(50 years ago) I can proudly state that I have never wasted a dime on a Koran——I pull them out of book dumps——-ie “free books—take please” I lived in a friendly town. I have to hide them from my husband—he was born in a shariah shit hole and would DEFINITELY dump them in the garbage. Anyone interested in a free Koran—–and no available book drops—-they give them out free in the Saudi Embassy
gravenimage says
Thank you, esther.
And I’m glad your husband was able to escape.
11B40 says
Greetings:
Yeah, Corsicans just love Muslims.
The European says
Bonaparte did more than just pandering to Islam and lavishing flattery on the oulema. Being utterly amoral himself, he found a kindred spirit in Muhammad. Having studied the Qur’an, he is said to have converted to Islam, calling himself henceforth Ali Bonaparte. And he intended to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca to kneel down at the Black Stone. He said about Islam: “I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of the Qur’an which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness.” Claude-Etienne Savary, a French orientalist who had translated the Qur’an into French made Bonaparte acquainted with the teachings of Islam. Being a fervent admirer of Muhammad, Savary said about him: “Mahomet was one of those extraordinary men who, born with superior gifts, show up infrequently on the face of the earth to change it and lead mortals behind their chariot. When we consider his point of departure and the summit of grandeur that he reached, we are astonished by what human genius can accomplish under favorable circumstances.”
Indeed, it would have been amazing if someone like Napoléon Bonaparte who was as ruthless and greedy for power and glory as fucking Muhammad, hadn’t felt admiration for the founder of Islam. Who can say that France would not already be a “terre d’islam,” if Bonaparte had prevailed in Europe?
Lu says
“Indeed, it would have been amazing if someone like Napoléon Bonaparte who was as ruthless and greedy for power and glory as fucking Muhammad, hadn’t felt admiration for the founder of Islam”
That about sums it up – sure it must have been the case: these two psychopaths were truly looking for each other in the course of history …
gravenimage says
The European wrote:
Bonaparte did more than just pandering to Islam and lavishing flattery on the oulema. Being utterly amoral himself, he found a kindred spirit in Muhammad. Having studied the Qur’an, he is said to have converted to Islam, calling himself henceforth Ali Bonaparte. And he intended to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca to kneel down at the Black Stone. He said about Islam: “I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of the Qur’an which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness.”
………………………..
The European, this quote comes from a letter Napoleon wrote to Sheikh El-Messiri in 1798. Napoleon knew he would be leaving Egypt soon, and He was hoping to secure El-Messiri’s support for his successor governor Jean-Baptiste Kléber.
In other words, this was just more pandering, flattery, and manipulation.
Napoleon never talked like this with fellow Infidels.
Frank Bogen says
Principally Napoléon invaded Egypt for three reasons. He wanted to win a new colony for France. He tried to get access to the Red Sea from where a French war fleet would sail towards Egypt in order to attack the British colony; and he said that he intended to teach to Egypt modern science, technology, craftmanship and ideas as well as to learn from the wisdom of ancient Egypt, exploring the vestiges of pharaonic civilization Hundreds of artists, geographers, cartographers, orientalist, scientists, botanists, and architects travelled along with his army. Having defeated the Mamlouks, he endeavored eagerly to be on good terms with the Islamic clerics who were needed for the estblishment of his rule over the country. Hence, his pandering, his flatteries, his niceties, and false promises. A man like him, devoid of moral principles and being a Christian all but in name, worshipped above all himself and his all-consuming will to power. Has there been anything else of value to him except his own genius? La mission civilisatrice de la France, peut-être? Sharing the achievements of the French Revolution -civil rights, human rights, liberty, progress, humanity- with other nations? To be a beacon of hope, a bright light shining in the darkness of barbarity? Did he believe in that, did he only pretend to believe in that, did he believe in that as long as it served his purpose? Was he a cynical, a pragmatist, a true believer? His intentions to convert to Islam were, of course, not sincere. Talking to the Islamic clerics, he said that he and his soldiers were true Muslims, too, but they replied that, if he and his men wanted to be considered true Muslims, they must get circumcised and stop drinking wine. Napoléon answered them evasively, in flowery language, making vague promises. Bonaparte was a consummate actor, nevertheless do I think that he would have embraced Islam, if it had really suited him -like Clovis, the Frankish king who converted to Christianity, because he thought that ruling his gallo-roman subjects would be much easier, if both he and the natives had the same faith.
gravenimage says
Good analysis.
George says
Yes, we all know of the thosands of mosques he built along his trail of Christian tears. And that logistics train, those weren’t pigs, but rare wool free sheep with curled tails. And it was anazing how those French soldiers mimicked wild drunken excess drinking goat’s milk.
gravenimage says
Brilliant sarcasm.
abad says
Highly doubtful.
Napoleon was however a master at dealing with others on their level in a way they could understand – a skill which is precisely what made him such a great politician.
Oh, didn’t he invent the phrase, “One hand washes the other”?
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“Muslim student will be first Miss England finalist to wear hijab”
https://www.rt.com/uk/437451-muslim-student-miss-england/
gravenimage says
Not much of a Hijab–but no doubt Muslims consider it another step towards Muslim supremacy.
Mirren10 says
Typical MSM crapola, looking to establish that muslims are ‘just like us’.See, they enter beauty competitions ! They’re integrating ! They aren’t violent !’ It isn’t a hijab at all, in fact, just a scarf covering her bun at the back. When I had long hair, I often used to do the same, except I didn’t have an idiot msm reporter following me around calling it a ‘hijab’. Idiots.
gravenimage says
Exactly, Mirren.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
This is the source of the problem: big middle eastern money.
“Qatar looking to invest billions more in Germany – finance minister”
https://www.rt.com/business/437458-qatar-invest-billions-germany/
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“13yo New Mexico compound victim says he was trained to wage jihad – court papers”
https://www.rt.com/usa/437428-new-mexico-jihad-fbi/
gravenimage says
Thanks for that link, Flavius.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
I guess this was already reported by JW. Oops.
gravenimage says
That’s fine.
Gjallarhornet says
I don’t think Napelon was even close to islam. This for two reasons. Firstly, Napeleon had, to an extreme degree, the ability to think cold blooded strategy. Secondly, he had, combined with this ability for cold thinking, a large capacity for empathy – privately he was a rather warm man, quick to show feelings.
This are BOTH qualities that adherents of islam lack. No one who picks up mohammeds mantle is going to have his brain capacity enlarged or turn into a nice person. And for the tounge in cheek here i guess it is time for a smiley icon. 🙂
Gerald Fontenot says
Robert Spencer…….have you lost your mind? Napoleon was this and that and lots of things. he was certainly a Military tactician. he told the Pope in so man words to go to Hell and he was raised as a Catholic. You think he would let a Muslim covert him. do you really? If you do you have lost it my friend. I have been with your site many years but if you ever write something this stupid again I will turn you off for life. I don’t like the Muslims and what they do anymore than you do.
Robert Spencer says
You obviously know nothing about Napoleon. My quotes from him are fully sourced in the book. Goodbye.
Charles says
“The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful.”
― Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Napoleon was a politician, and nothing more or less.
Lars says
I don’ t know whether Napoleon was a Muslim or not but he was a Freemason just as many of our politicians, celebrities and big companies are today. Freemasonry embraces both Islam and Christianity in order to run their own hidden evil agendas with no respect to democracy at all.
duh swami says
“Talk is cheap’…Did Nappy walk the walk? That is prayers, wu’du, Ramadan fast? If he did, his prayer rug is a historical artifact and worth a lot of money…
gravenimage says
Nope.
UNCLE VLADDI says
He was trolling them.
dan christensen says
Napoleon found out that Moe was of short stature like himself, so Moe probably developed a Napoleon complex. That is why Napoleon liked Moe – believe or not.
duh swami says
Allah is the greatest god ever…When you die, Allah gives you raisins..
I bet Nappy knew that and looked forward to his 72 raisins….
Jennifer King says
This text makes the vital mistake: ‘There is no other God but Allah’. It must be ‘There is no god but Allah’. Allah is not God. Almighty God in Arabic and the Qur’an is always Ilah, Al-Rahman, the Beneficent, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Allah is always and only Allah ‘the god’ in Arabic and the Qur’an.
duh swami says
‘The god’ is a duality…Making Allah the ‘Lord of matter’…Since all evil happens in matter, it’s not that hard to figure out the true nature of
Al-lah…
mike says
Napolean took more than one wife and he was very unapologetic about this fact.. He never hid the fact that he took on various women to accompany on his campaigns while in their country, principally the Countess Walewska, from Poland, whom he humiliated as a symbol of his conquest of her country and region, which was VERY traditionally Catholic at the time. This was his form of conquest and dominance and to prove he was greater than the men of the country he invaded.
Qur’ãn says:
“From His signs is that He has created for you spouses from yourselves so that you may get peace [and tranquility] through them; and He placed between you love and mercy. In these are signs for the people who reflect.” (Surah ar-Room, 30:21)
anyways, this is my two cents
Doc says
Any suggestion that Napoleon was a Muslim, having converted after reading the Koran is risible. He was nothing of the sort. As Wellington says he used Islam as a means to an end: namely to convince the largely Muslim population of Egypt to welcome him as a savior rather than just another conqueror. We also know this from his proclamation, a remarkable document which he had printed hundreds of copies in Arabic, Turkish and French posted throughout Cairo and Egypt in which he stated “I have come to restore you to your rights and to punish the usurpers; that I worship God more than the Mamelukes do; and that I respect His prophet Mohammad and the admirable Koran.” As prominent American historian J. Christopher Herold (and author of the seminal work ‘Bonaparte In Egypt’ – but himself no fan of Napoleon) says it was ‘plainly Bonaparte’s deliberate appeal to Moslem feeling, curiously combined with the libertarian catchwords of the French Revolution.’ Herold goes on to suggest that it was this he may have had in mind when Napoleon spoke of composing ‘a new Koran… to suit his own needs and hold in his hand as he conquered the East.’ Herold also quotes Napoleon himself as later admitting ‘it was a piece of charlatanry’ albeit ‘of the highest sort’ – all of which suggests he used Islam to promote his own ambitions but was never a believer. The only thing Napoleon believed in was himself and his often referred to ‘star of destiny’.
J D S says
Talk about FAKE NEWS …Let’s start a new slogan. Islam IS what it IS, Fake News!
dan christensen says
Napoleon knew that islam was not a religion nor a political system. Islam was created a military organisation, where mosques were military outposts and minaretes were viewing towers. Instead of soldiers lining up standing, islam originally used the muslim prostration in rows for lineup.
Napoleon could see the advantage of having muslim militants on his side, so he complimented the muslims warlike heritage and flattered their top general Moe.
dan christensen says
From the net (warhistoryonline):
Later in life, Napoleon stated that, if he had remained in the Middle East, he would probably have taken a pilgrimage to Mecca to kneel at the shrine there. It’s easy to dismiss this, but to have said it at all shows a great respect for Islam that was remarkable for a European of his time.
Sources:
Matthew D. Zarzeczny (2013), Meteors that Enlighten the Earth: Napoleon and the Cult of Great Men.
Ren says
Napoleon was an opportunist. He used muslim faith to get what he wanted.
deplorable says
Reading it now. Seems like “it’s deja vu all over again”, more of the same with the narcissistic, corrupt and powerful elite who implement flawed policies, bringing suffering to the masses.
Blake Jay II says
Dear Robert,
I want to buy your book but it is not available in Australia,
Amazon USA does not ship here anymore.
Do you plan to make it available on Amazons Australian site ?
marc says
try barnes and noble
Im4truth4all says
I suspect he saw some 6 year old girl that excited him just like the old flatulation mohammad.
lebel says
“Again, Lebel, you managed to get things completely ass-backwards. England under Pitt and his successors (e.g., Percival and the Earl of Liverpool) understood that Napoleon was never to be trusted on the matter of peace or on anything.”
Right, you answer none of my points. Arrogantly dismiss everything I have brought forward and then bring up Thomas Jefferson. We are talking about England’s treachery. As soon as you are boxed in and you actually have to bring forth evidence you move the goalpost or jump to something else. I can find plenty of people that have good things to say about Bonaparte including his enemies.
gravenimage says
Of course lebel would see defense against tyranny as “treachery”. He takes largely the same pose vis-a-vis the threat of Islam.
lebel says
““Again, Lebel, you managed to get things completely ass-backwards. England under Pitt and his successors (e.g., Percival and the Earl of Liverpool) understood that Napoleon was never to be trusted on the matter of peace or on anything.””
This is how we justify lying and breaking oaths/treaties when our side (the good guys) do it.
“Sure we lied, but we’re the good guys”
Imagine if a Muslim country had signed a treaty and broken it? We wouldn’t hear the end of it,