So I was just browsing some quotes by 'ole Napoleon (he always had such a flair for the dramatic) and I came across some surprising quotes by him regarding Muhammad ibn Abdullah, and his views on "Mohammedanism". To list them, Napoleon allegedly says:
"Religions are all founded on miracles — on things we cannot understand, such as the Trinity. Jesus calls himself the Son of God, and yet is descended from David. I prefer the religion of Mahomet — it is less ridiculous than ours.
"The Mohammedan religion is the finest of all"
"Muhammad was a great man, an intrepid soldier; with a handful of men he triumphed at the battle of Bender (sic); a great captain, eloquent, a great man of state, he revived his fatherland and created a new people and a new power in the middle of Arabia."
"Muhammad was a prince; he rallied his compatriots around him. In a few years, the Muslims conquered half of the world. They plucked more souls from false gods, knocked down more idols, razed more pagan temples in fifteen years than the followers of Moses and Jesus did in fifteen centuries. Muhammad was a great man. He would indeed have been a god, if the revolution that he had performed had not been prepared by the circumstances."
My question is two-fold:
1.) What is the validity of these quotations.
2.) If indeed true, where and how would a person like Napoleon receive knowledge, historical or otherwise, about Muhammad and Islam? And how thorough could that knowledge be when he is referring to Islam as the "Mohammedan Religion"? I know he technically conquered Egypt, but Im asking more-so in terms of the setting and formality of the education. What piqued my interest in particular is his mention of the "Battle of Bender". I might be mistaken, but I think this is a reference to the Battle of Badr. This was one of the most decisive and fateful battles in the history of Islam, but something that few westerners would be aware of today. How does Napoleon know enough about this to form a strong opinion? I guess a figure of his stature would've had access and inquiry beyond that of your typical yeoman farmer, but does anyone have some deeper insight as to how and why Napoleon could have said these things?
In answer to the first part of your question: the first two quotes both come from Gaspard Gourgaud's Journal de Sainte-Hélène 1815-1818 (available in its full English translation here.) I've seen Gourgaud quoted plenty, and he was certainly close to Bonaparte — as a general, an aide-de-camp and a follower in his exile on St Helena. As with a lot of what was written about Napoleon during his life, it's hard to separate honest accounting from legacy-building, and his remarkably persistent cult of personality can complicate things. But I don't know of any substantive reason to doubt those quotes or Gourgaud, and there's no way to know for sure.
As to the second part: I think it's pretty likely that a three-year campaign in Egypt is probably where the majority of Napoleon's direct contact with and learning about Islam took place. He wasn't just fighting his way across the desert; he was also the French military governor of Egypt; he ruled the country, however briefly. There's plenty of reason to believe he would have talked with the region's civic and religious leaders, and gleaned some understanding of the culture, during that time.
Also, 'Mohammedan' is a common archaic name for followers of Islam, and Bonaparte's use of the term doesn't in any way signify ignorance.
Some more general notes on Bonaparte and religion, because the 'Napoleon was a Muslim' trope is one that gets wheeled out pretty often when talking about him:
Napoleon's views on religion are complex, and subject to interpretation — but what is relatively clear is that he was a deeply pragmatic and opportunistic man.
There's a school of thought which argues that Napoleon's tolerance or affection towards Islam, much like his emancipation of the Jews, was an act of political expediency rather than deep-seated conviction; that he saw an opportunity to secure his rule further by casting himself as a tolerant, benevolent counterpoint to the rest of the European powers (whose attitudes to Islam and Judaism were far from progressive.) He's recorded as having remarked:
It is by making myself Catholic that I brought peace to Brittany and Vendée. It is by making myself Italian that I won minds in Italy. It is by making myself a Moslem that I established myself in Egypt. If I governed a nation of Jews, I should reestablish the Temple of Solomon.
His private secretary, Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne, wrote of Bonaparte and Islam:
Doubtless Bonaparte did, as he was bound to do, show respect for the religion of [Egypt]; and he found it necessary to act more like a Mussulman than a Catholic. A wise conqueror supports his triumphs by protecting and even elevating the religion of the conquered people. Bonaparte's principle was, as he himself has often told me, to look upon religions as the work of men, but to respect them everywhere as a powerful engine of government. However, I will not go so far as to say that he would not have changed his religion had the conquest of the East been the price of that change. All that he said about Mahomet, Islamism, and the Koran to the great men of the country he laughed at himself. He enjoyed the gratification of having all his fine sayings on the subject of religion translated into Arabic poetry, and repeated from mouth to mouth. This of course tended to conciliate the people.
I confess that Bonaparte frequently conversed with the chiefs of the Mussulman religion on the subject of his conversion; but only for the sake of amusement. The priests of the Koran, who would probably have been delighted to convert us, offered us the most ample concessions. But these conversations were merely started by way of entertainment, and never could have warranted a supposition of their leading to any serious result. If Bonaparte spoke as a Mussulman, it was merely in his character of a military and political chief in a Mussulman country. To do so was essential to his success, to the safety of his army, and, consequently, to his glory. In every country he would have drawn up proclamations and delivered addresses on the same principle. In India he would have been for Ali, at Thibet for the Dalai-lama, and in China for Confucius.
Some people raise questions about Bourrienne's reliability as a historical source, so perhaps take his writings with a pinch of salt — but he's also one of the most detailed primary sources on Bonaparte's life and career, so I'm reluctant to discount him entirely. His Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte, in their English translation, are available on Project Gutenberg.
When Napoleon conquered Egypt, he sent Europe's great scholars and artists there to compile histories, illustrations of their great art and architecture, philosophy, politics, education, etc. There's a really amazing set of books that were the result. As a rare book dealer, I had the opportunity to examine them. I don't recall the name of the set. Perhaps someone else here knows? Otherwise, I'll look it up later.
Yes, as crazy as it seems they are more than likely valid and even fit into napoleons style of ruling quite well (I'll explain in further detail later)
Napoleon would have had access to histories and a considerably surprising wealth of knowledge on Islam and Middle-Eastern history. Europeans had never been ignorant about island even in the Middle Ages (there were accounts of monks writing about how a story that the Muslims cut off a Christian noble man's head and using it in a play as Muhammed was bullshit because they knew that portraying Muhammed was a no-no and therefore knew the story wasn't true back in Europe instantly). While no real records of what napoleon exactly studied before he left, it is safe to assume he studied substantially, as he was an avid reader of histories.
As for why he said those things: it was Napoleon being typical Napoleon and saying whatever he had to to try to get support. Napoleon was at best a horrific Catholic (personally I agree with the camp that he was an avid atheist but said otherwise because he was a smart politician) and really could care less about Islam. He was saying what he had to to appease the right people as his Egypt campaign was falling apart (it really was a pretty disastrous campaign). Napoleon was an opportunist and he was saying what needed to be said to advance his position. He was too much of a scheming bastard to have actually sincerely meant what he said.
(Note: I actually have a favorable opinion of Napoleon, contrary to what this post may make it seem like, but I am very much a believer that he cares little for religion or sentiments or promises, he was a true opportunist and would do whatever he had to do)