As you can (and will) see, the revolutionary secularist ideas ticked Ottoman intellectuals the most, especially because the classical Ottoman idea of 'Circle of Justice' requires the sharia to be upheld. With the French invasion of Egypt, an imperial proclamation (propaganda) was issued and distributed to Syria, Egypt, and Arabia to counter possible revolutionary influences:

O you who believe in the unity of God, community of Muslims, know that the French nation do not believe in the unity of the Lord of Heaven and Earth, nor in the mission of the intercessor on the Day of Judgment, but have abandoned all religions and denied the afterworld and its penalties ... so that they have pillaged their churches and the adornments of their crucifixes and attacked their priests and monks. They assert that the books the prophets brought are clear error and that the Qur’an, the Torah and the Gospels are nothing but fakes and idle talk ... and that all men are equal in humanity and alike in being men, none has any superiority of merit over any other, and every one himself disposes of his soul and arranges his own livelihood in this life. In this vain belief and preposterous opinion they have erected new principles and set new laws, and established what Satan whispered to them, and destroyed the bases of religions, and made lawful to themselves forbidden things, and permitted themselves whatever their passions desire, and enticed into their iniquity the common people, who are as raving madmen, and sown sedition among religions, and thrown mischief between kings and states ... With counterfeit books and meretricious falsehoods they address themselves to every party and say, “We belong to you, to your religion and to your community,” and they make them vain promises and utter fearful warnings. They are wholly given up to villainy and debauchery, and ride the steed of perfidy and presumption, and dive in the sea of delusion and oppression and are united under the banner of Satan. They compelled those who would not obey or follow them, so that the other nations of the Franks were thrown into confusion and disorder by their iniquities; the French, baying like dogs and biting like wolves, gathered against those nations and communities, seeking to destroy the foundations of their religions and to plunder their women and their property. Blood flowed like water, and the French gained their objective and ruled over them with injustice and evil.

Halet Efendi, the new Ottoman Ambassador to France was coincidentally a known reactionary and hater of all things Western, has this thoughts about the revolution in this letter:

I ask you to pray for my safe return from this land of infidels, for I have come as far as Paris, but I have not yet seen the Frangistan that people speak of and praise; in what Europe these wonderful things and these wise Franks are found, I do not know. Glory be to God, the minds and beliefs of these people! It is a strange thing that this Frangistan, with the praises of which our ears have for so long been filled, we found to be not only unlike what was said but the reverse. God knows, their minds and their comprehension are such that the difference between them and the people of Islam is like the difference between boatmen and scribes among us. Their stratagems and policies are crude; before they even formulate an intention, one can understand what they are going to do; these successes they have won arise only from our own lack of zeal, for they have no soldiers as brave as ours, no ministers like our ministers, and our artillery officers are more competent than theirs. Their capital consists of nothing but talk ... If anyone, with the intention either of intimidating you or of leading you astray, praises Frangistan, then ask him this question: “Have you been to Europe, or have you not?” If he says, “Indeed I have been there, and I enjoyed myself awhile,” then assuredly he is a partisan and a spy for the Franks. If he says, “No, I have not been; I know it from history books,” then he is one of two things, either he is an ass who takes heed of what the Franks write, or else he praises the Franks out of religious fanaticism. Since the French had no king, they could have no government. Furthermore, as a result of the interregnum that occurred, most of the high positions are held by the scum of the people, and, though a few nobles remain, effective power is still in the hands of the vile rabble. Thus they were unable to organize a republic. Since they are no more than an association of revolutionaries, or a pack of dogs, it is in no way possible for a nation to expect loyalty or friendship from these people ... Since neither Bonaparte nor the “ministers” he employs are cognizant of the language and the usage of government, they behave like brigand chieftains. Not knowing how either to show respect or to give an effective answer, they strive to settle everything by force. Even Talleyrand, though better born than the rest of them is just a spoiled priest ... The usages followed between nations are strange to him, and he is very treacherous. Bonaparte, rebellious against fate and in a lust for domination, strives day and night like a fiercely biting dog to bring diverse mischiefs on the surrounding lands and to reduce all states to the same disorder as his own accursed nation.

Some intellectuals like Ratib Efendi and Ahmed Asim Efendi predicted the revolutionary ideas to be a plague, which will spread and left the nations of Europe to be in disarray, including the Ottoman Empire. Ratib Efendi said:

...If God wills, He the Almighty will afflict them with every calamity and evil and it is quite clear that soon the Austrian and Russian states will be in disarray as a result of this revolution

Similarly, Ahmed Asim Effendi, a confidential secretary to Selim III expressed this:

The newly established republic in France is different from the other Frankish polities. Its ultimate basis is an evil doctrine consisting of the abandonment of religion and the equality of rich and poor ... [In the Ottoman Empire] certain sensualists, naked of the garment of loyalty, from time to time learned politics from them; some, desirous of learning their language, took French teachers, acquired their idiom, and prided themselves ... on their uncouth talk. In this way they were able to insinuate Frankish customs in the hearts and endear their modes of thought to the minds of some people of weak mind and shallow faith. The sober-minded and farsighted, and the ambassadors of the other states, foresaw the danger of this situation; full of alarm and disapproval, they reviled and condemned these things both implicitly and explicitly and gave forewarning of the evil consequences to which their activities would give rise. This malicious crew and abominable band were full of cunning, first sowing the seed of their politics in the soil of the hearts of the great ones of the state and then, by incitement and seduction to their ways of thought, undermining, God preserve us, the principles of the Holy Law.

So to recap, while initially disinterested and indifferent with the revolution, events in France and further French actions resulted in an opposition from Ottoman intellectuals to the ideas of French Revolution. This isn't also unique to Istanbul and Ottoman intellectuals either, Egyptian intellectuals also commented on French revolutionary ideas, and of course European nations reacted violently to suppress the French revolution (2/2)

Sources:

The Formation of Turkish Republicanism by Banu Turnaoglu

A Middle Eastern Mosaic by Bernard Lewis

I'll try to answer your question, sorry if it doesn't satisfy you. I'll generally talk about the Ottoman intellectuals' opinions on the revolution, including Ottoman ambassador to Paris from 1802 to 1806 Halet Efendi. Contrary to some beliefs, the Ottoman Empire is well aware of international situation and new thoughts and principles.

Most Ottoman intellectuals at the time know that the revolution has far-reaching consequences and not just a 'riot'. At first, the Ottomans saw the Revolution as a domestic French problem, of no significance to their own Empire. Even after Louis XVI, who Selim III regarded as a close friend, was executed and the revolutionary wars began to spread to Western Europe, the Ottomans remained aloof and uninterested, believing that a struggle between European powers would keep them preoccupied with each other and reduce their interference in Ottoman affairs. To retain their diplomatic relations with France, the Ottomans declared neutrality, disappointing the Europeans at war with France. Mehmed Rasid Efendi, a cleric and court chronicler believed that France’s new form of government would not influence Ottoman thinking about politics or strain their relations:

The friendship of the Sublime State for the French is not contingent on its form of government, be it a republic or a monarchy, but it is a friendship with the French people ... We do not consider their costume and symbols important, and interfering in these matters means disapproving of their conduct. Even disapproving is enough to be deemed to be taking the side of their adversaries, and this is contrary to neutrality

He also had this exchange in 1792, portraying how the Ottomans view this new government:

One day the Austrian chief dragoman came and said "May God punish these Frenchmen as they deserve, they have caused us much sorrow. For heaven’s sake, if only you would have those cockades stripped off their heads." To this request Raşid Efendi replied: "My friend, we have told you several times that the Ottoman Empire is a Muslim state. No one among us pays any attention to those badges of theirs. We recognize the merchants of friendly states as guests. They wear that headgear as they wish on their heads, and attach what badges as they please. And if they put baskets of grapes on their heads, it is not the business of the Sublime Porte to ask them why they do so. You are troubling yourself for nothing

However, this neutral attitude changed with the French invasion of Egypt and further expansion of Napoleon's French Empire, especially with the annexation of Ionian islands and Dalmatian coasts. The new French Empire had suddenly become an Ottoman neighbor and could very well threaten its territories. Soon alarming reports come in from the Morea about alleged French attempt at rising a rebellion and plans to annex Morea and Crete. Despite French assurences, the Revolution and the approaching threat of revolutionary expansionism generated opposition, skepticism, and fear about the conception of a republic and its principles. In 1798, Chief Secretary Ahmed Atif Efendi criticized French revolutionaries for enticing common people to follow their corrupt principles with fake promises of equality and freedom for the attainment of “complete happiness". He also abhors the extremely secularist ideas which he held only led to chaos, bloodshed, and anarchy:

It is one of the things known to all well-informed persons that the conflagration of sedition and wickedness that broke out a few years ago in France, scattering sparks and shooting flames of mischief and tumult in all directions, had been conceived many years previously in the minds of certain accursed heretics and had been a quiescent evil which they sought an opportunity to awaken. In this way: the known and famous atheists Voltaire and Rousseau, and other materialists like them, had printed and published various works, consisting, God preserve us, of insults and vilifications against the pure prophets and great kings, of the removal and abolition of all religion, and of allusions to the sweetness of equality and republicanism, all expressed in easily intelligible words and phrases, in the form of mockery, in the language of the common people ... When the Revolution became more intense, none took offense at the closing of churches, the killing and expulsion of monks and the abolition of religion and doctrine, they set their hearts on equality and freedom, through which they hoped to attain perfect bliss in this world, in accordance with the lying teachings increasingly disseminated among the common people by this pernicious crew, who stirred up sedition and evil because of selfishness or self-interest. It is well known that the ultimate basis of the order and cohesion of every state is a firm grasp of the roots and branches of holy law, religion and doctrine, that the tranquillity of the land and the control of the subjects cannot be encompassed by political means alone, that the necessity for the fear of God and the regard for retribution in the heart of God’s slaves is one of the unshakably established divine decrees, that in both ancient and modern times every state and people has had its own religion, whether true or false ... Nor were they satisfied with this alone, but finding like- minded supporters in every place, in order to keep other states busy with the protection of their own states and thus forestall an attack on themselves, they had their rebellious declaration which they call “The Rights of Man” translated into all languages and published in all parts, and strove to incite the common people of all nations and religions to rebel against the kings to whom they were subject

(1/2)

​

Just to clarify, are you asking about what the Ottomans think of the French revolution and its ideals?