06/10/2020 00:00
The French Revolution is the most important direct event that preceded the West’s translation of the inscriptions of Misr and the region in general.
Of course, we do not read this history, and it is a work that requires greater effort by researchers, and it is wrong for me to claim that we will analyze that period in two sentences or points… and shorten the time in two sentences… The topic requires great research and drawing a conclusion… But we only talk about the things that relate to us from those events.
Also…we are trying to come up with a general idea from the events only, as there are many interconnected events that can be considered reasons that negate our general idea.
But let’s make an assumption….what if?!
What if I tried to re-read history from the official sources, and made it proceed logically and in parallel with the evidence found in the sources, with the idea I have with me, which is that the main reason for the French Revolution was the project of occupying the region, falsifying the book, and eliminating Islam.
Then I made this history and this idea an official history taught in schools and universities in my country?! …. What will happen ?!
Do you expect that France and the West will criticize this work?!
Of course……..Without a doubt…they will send strong messages of protest, how can the goals of that imaginary human revolution be transformed into a revolution for the sake of that idea. Rather, they will say that I am creating hostility among the peoples towards France…and I am calling for hatred.
In short, I mean… history is written according to mood, and there is no evidence to confirm the truth of history… because I re-read history logically and from the sources and extracted its conclusion and made it an official history that is studied and… There is no problem with my words, as everything went well. I mean, do not impose your reading on you. I have a different reading, and the general idea is that they agreed to impose their reading on us… and this is the summary of what their leader said. The great Napoleon: History is a set of agreed-upon lies.
Was the history of the French Revolution among those agreed-upon lies?
Of course, my words may seem funny to many, but as I said, I am not talking about a 100-year history and summarizing every event in general terms and making a logical assumption. Rather, we are talking about a general framework for this history.
And this general framework: What is the main reason for which the French Revolution occurred?!
Because there is a great deal of controversy about the causes of this revolution, and there are those who put forward many reasons, including:
● Among the reasons for the revolution was the dominance of the church
But the dominance of the church is not limited to France. The church is everywhere, so why was it limited to France?!
Of course, this is a logical question, and some people do not think that it is an illogical question because I want to judge history, and that this is a coincidence, and a series of many events that will lead to a revolution.
There is nothing spontaneous…in reasons…because the conditions of France are the same as the conditions of the rest of its surroundings regarding religion and the church.
● It is also one of the reasons that the church fought experimental science
This is not a reason for a revolution, these are childish cartoon explanations, trying to portray an imaginary Greek society that has a need for knowledge, because society does not revolutionize because of these issues that it does not care about. There is a very compelling reason that is the reason for that revolution…poverty, hunger, etc. .
Of course, if you notice that the focus of the causes of the revolution is based on the causes of the Church, because it was already famous as a revolution that brought secularism and separated religion from the state.
But why did it need a secular revolution, when other countries did not need it and lived next to France and did not have a revolution in it, like Britain, and the society in Britain itself is in France? Britain continued without the need for a revolution.
This idea… has an answer that this revolution is credited with spreading secularism in the rest of Europe.
Ok… but secularism in the rest of Europe, such as Britain, did not need a revolution and secularism arose there… It was possible to spread secularism and spread all ideas and values normally without the need for a revolution… a ruler would spread it.
Because, as is known in history, the enlightened bourgeois class in France had the largest share in instigating and leading the revolution.
What is strange… is how a bourgeois class is the one that has the ability to bring about change in a country without a revolution… and such things are done by carrying out a coup only, and everything is as it is.
● Among the causes of the revolution are feudalism and classism
According to history… society in France consisted of three classes, at the top of which was the nobility, followed by the clergy, and finally the third class, which was the middle class (workers and peasants), and it had all the duties.
This could actually be a good reason for a revolution.
Of course, we do not have documentation or information from our archives about the situation in France so that we can be sure of feudalism.
But there was a trip taken by a Turkish man to France (Mehmet Çelebi Efendi) before the French Revolution, and on his trip he talked about how beautiful France was and how different the French were from the Ottomans, and about the beauty of life there and the lives of people in France, and he did not talk about anything. Bad, but this trip had a very big role in introducing Turkey to modernity, because this trip contributed to changing the mentality of the Ottoman sultans and their openness.
This trip is famous in current Turkish culture, as it is a trip similar to Al-Haberti’s trip to France as well (Summary of Al-Abriz in describing Paris)
The credit for that trip is due to the beginning of the French influence appearing somewhat in Turkey, in terms of construction, architecture, organization, administration… etc…. just as Muhammad Ali Pasha transferred the French influence to Misr after the travels of Al-Jabarti and others.
Of course, it is an official trip to France and is considered an official document, and we have nothing to do with it now being a fake or false trip. It is not our issue because it is officially recognized in the Ottoman archives to this day.
And if it’s fake, why?! …….And what is the purpose? . Then we will open the topic that all documents are fake and we must read realistically without documents.
Then why did the Ottomans choose France and not others, even though France before the revolution was the same as any place in Europe, meaning it was not an important center, as there was Italy of the Age of Enlightenment and Rome was more beautiful and closer to the Turkish one?!
Note: In this man’s journey, he talked about the difference between a Frenchman and an Ottoman… and he did not talk about a Turk or a Muslim. He attributes himself as an Ottoman, not a Turk or a Muslim. So was his trip to France as a Muslim, a Turk, or an Ottoman, because according to history, he was Ottoman? They ruled the region as an Islamic caliphate, but the Muslim did not call himself Ottoman, but rather a Muslim or an Arab…. Or did they view themselves as a people different from others within a state that organized other peoples.. So what about a caliphate?!
Is this real history?! And why?!
We will leave this topic….but I wanted to draw attention to such points when reading history…so that many will realize some of the entries that confirm to them that the history of the Ottomans is fictitious…and the Ottomans did not rule the region according to history…we did not know The Turks, except when the West entered, were only their agents. The purpose of this history – that we were ruled by the Ottomans for 600 years – is to enslave the imagination of the Arab Muslim, and to make his imagination always have the Turk in it, and that he only knows himself with the Turks ruling him… a follower of the Turks.
The Ottoman man (Mehmed Çelebi Efendi) on his trip to France before the French Revolution depicts the same world that Al-Haberti depicted on his trip to France after the French Revolution.
Why did the French Revolution take place?!
This question is very logical, and there are European historians who speak with the same logic that we are talking about.
For example… a historian named Robert Darnton, professor of modern European history at Princeton University, on the anniversary of France’s celebration of the bicentennial of the French Revolution, said: If France celebrates the bicentennial of the fall of the Bastille, the removal of feudalism, and the declaration of human rights… Citizen, the situation in France during the period in which the revolution occurred was not in fact all that bad as many believed. The Bastille was almost empty of prisoners at the time of the attack. Likewise, feudalism had already ended by the time the revolution announced its abolition, or at least it did not exist to such an obscene degree.
● Among the reasons for the revolution were hatred of the monarchy and a desire for a republican system governed by the rule of the people.
But it is strange……. The French Revolution did the same thing that it fought and arose in order to eliminate it. The revolution adopted dictatorial and monarchical rule after its establishment.
After the revolution, France became a monarchy and a dictatorship.
Why did this revolution take place?!
● Among the reasons for the revolution is to eliminate religion or to completely remove religion from political life.
But it is strange… The French Revolution’s positions indicated a central interest in religion.
how
– Napoleon of the French Revolution, the revolution that abandoned religion, was the one who received the keys of an old church in Jerusalem and an Ottoman ruler handed them over to him, and this church is still under the administration of the French government to this day.
Strange and strange…a secular revolution preoccupied and concerned with the church
The revolution also promised the Zionist movement to establish a state for the Al-Yahoud if the French campaign succeeded in occupying Misr and the Arab region.
Strange and strange…a secular revolution preoccupied and interested in establishing a state on a religious basis.
Why did this revolution take place?!
● Among the reasons for the revolution are human rights, respect for humans, belief in their rights as human beings, justice and equality.
But these wonderful values were not among the foundations of that revolution, nor were they among the actions of that revolution, nor were they among the results of that revolution.
1- The revolution took place against injustice and oppression, and the phrase: (Liberty – Fraternity – Equality) was raised as its slogan.
But how is it possible to make sense of these wonderful slogans and values that led to the revolution? However, according to official history, the massacres and massacres carried out by the revolutionaries were very large.
The British historian says: If the revolution had declared human and citizen rights, it soon squandered these rights with the crimes, massacres, and waves of terrorism it committed that swept all of France only 5 years after declaring those rights, to the point that some British historians, such as Alfred Cobbin, were describing these Declarations (human and civil rights) are just a myth.
The French historian Pierre Caron, who published a book in the year (1354 AH = 1935 AD) said about the massacres that occurred in Parisian prisons during the era of the revolution on (15 Muharram 1207 AH = September 2, 1792 AD)… He says about these massacres: These massacres had a character (ritual) sweeping,
What is strange is that those who were committing these massacres were committing them in the name of freedom, human rights, and (citizen, justice, and equality)!
Sergio Buschero, head of the Italian Royalist Movement, says: The French Revolution was a movement hostile to the French people at the time of its outbreak, and the myth of popular control of the Bastille prison was nothing more than a robbery of the weapons store in the Bastille, which was hosting only 7 prisoners, including 3 insane.
He adds: The French Revolution truly carried out the largest massacre in history, or at least among the French people, as it killed 300,000 peasants, and thus it is considered the source of global terrorism. The “phenomenon of terrorism” was born from the French Revolution.
2- The French Revolution took its principles from the ideas of the philosophers: “Jean-Jacques Rousseau,” “Voltaire,” and “Montesque,” and they are considered to be the intellectual pillars that built the French Revolution, or that the French Revolution adopted the ideas of those thinkers.
But these ideas and values that these thinkers came up with contained within them the spirit of evil, crime, and hatred.
For example, there is the thinker Montesquieu, the author of the book “The Spirit of the Laws,” who speaks clearly about his contempt for other human races. The author of the book “The Spirit of the Laws” says in justifying the enslavement of blacks by whites, words that cannot come from the mind of a thinker.
Montesquier says in some of his statements: “If I were asked to justify our acquired right to enslave blacks, I would say that the peoples of Europe, after they annihilated the indigenous population of America, saw no alternative to enslaving blacks in Africa in order to exploit them in exploiting those vast areas, and had they not been exploited in cultivating this land to obtain sugar.” Its price will rise.”
Montesquier says in justifying the crimes of colonialism by the white man: “Those who were ridiculed in this act are nothing but black people, who have their noses pierced and do not deserve any mercy or guidance.”
He says: “He never imagines that Allah, in His sublime wisdom, has placed in those black creatures souls that could be good.”
3- This revolution did not result in those values, concepts, and rights.
Because the governments of the French Revolution carried out actions that were completely contradictory to the principles declared by wealth (liberty, fraternity, and equality).
So how do you raise these slogans and apply their opposite to others? True principles confirm a person’s commitment to them in any place, but these values and slogans turned out to be lies, and in fact you contradicted them in a brutal way.
For example…not ten years passed, but during the revolution itself because the revolution lasted ten years, until the revolution decided to occupy the countries and dealt with the peoples and societies of the occupied countries with the logic of master and slave.
Rather, it rose and committed brutal massacres in all the occupied countries, out of savage hatred and pleasure in killing, and out of the lack of any humanitarian outlook towards those peoples.
—————————
Why did this revolution take place?! …Or what is the main, direct, fundamental reason that prompted the establishment of this revolution?!
Assuming that it is a revolution, we believe to a very large extent that the direct and fundamental cause of the French Revolution is:
The draft plan to occupy Misr and the East… falsifying the book for the sake of money.
Because when looking at the plan to occupy Misr and the region that the philosopher, politician, and mathematician Leibniz sent to the King of France almost 100 years before the French Revolution, it required a brutal force to implement this plan.
Why ?!
For several reasons
1- Because the plan talks about a huge and great global project…that will make France rule the world and the East, and that this project will allow the unification of Europe and the creation of one church in the world that will serve Europe.
The plan was concerned with and focused on the religious aspect and the creation of one church, and linked this aspect to the necessity of occupying Misr and the East.
We believe that there was a plan related to religion in general, with a religious goal by occupying a religious center.
As we know, the French Revolution was linked to religion, but from the standpoint of hostility to religion.
2- During the French Revolution, and in light of an unstable situation in France, and in light of a revolution that has not yet been completed, the decision-making center is required to focus on internal affairs and try to reform it and stabilize the revolution, but the French Revolution was strangely interested and focused on preparing a campaign. A huge military force to invade and occupy Misr and the region.
In other words…the French Revolution was not concerned with arranging its internal situation, as much as it was very concerned with arranging an external situation, with the invasion of Misr and the region.
3- According to official history, Napoleon was interested, busy, and devoted to reading Leibniz’s letters (the plan to occupy Misr)… before launching his large and massive military campaign to Misr and the region.
Here we confirm that the draft plan to occupy Misr was strongly present within the scene of the revolution.
One would be surprised by a person who is an invader and is interested in reviewing this plan before coming to invade Misr, because this person is supposed to read geographical maps, climatic conditions and arrangements surrounding the place of invasion and the balance of power.
But reading a purely intellectual and ideological book…that talks about an ideological, intellectual and religious plan…it confirms that this plan was strongly present in the scene, and it was what pushed the viewer to the French Revolution.
This means that the plan was a central goal in the consciousness of the French Revolution
4- According to history, Zionism contributed to supporting the revolution and the revolutionaries financially in order to adopt a project to create a homeland for the Al-Yahoud in the region.
The revolutionaries promised to establish a Jewish state in Palestine if the French campaign succeeded in occupying Misr and the Arab East.
The French promise to establish a national homeland for the Al-Yahoud in Palestine was in exchange for Jewish financiers providing financial loans to the French government, which was experiencing a severe financial hardship at the time, and contributing to financing the French campaign heading towards the East, led by Bonaparte.
This indicates that there is a relationship between money and the religious goal (Judaism) of the French Revolution, which occurred in order to fight religion (Christianity).
This means that the idea of secularism, human values, and the neutralization of religion in political matters was false. Rather, the policy pursued by the revolution had a religious character and a religious goal.
And because the revolution arose for an issue related to Judaism, and because Judaism is the religious group that we have come to believe is the group that meets the descriptions of the hypothetical story that we have drawn through the readers, the possibility is very high…..that the French Revolution arose for an idea related to the story of the book and Region .
This means that religion was a central goal of the revolution.
——————–
A revolution that dressed up as a secular revolution that had nothing to do with religion, to hide that it was established for the sake of a major global project that carried a religious goal and money, that carried values of contempt for other peoples different from white, and began to practice murder and brutality against other peoples, and at the same time it had a powerful media machine. It is based on falsehood and lying, and it was able to make the world see it beautifully…it appears to us to be Shaytan’s revolution on earth in order to hide a truth on earth…and this truth is the book.
Think carefully… line by line… all the descriptions of the French Revolution (money, religion, false and lying media, contempt for others, their hatred, and their practice of murder, slaughter, and crime) in the story of Shaytan in the Qur’an.
{And when your Allah said to the angels, “Indeed, I will place a caliph on earth,” they said, “Will you place therein someone who will spread corruption therein and shed blood while we glorify Your praise and sanctify You?” He said, “Indeed, I know what you do not know.” (30) And He taught Adam all the names, then presented them to the angels, and said, “Inform me of the names of these, if you are truthful.” (31) They said, Glory be to You, we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. (32) He said, “O Adam, inform them of their names.” When he informed them of their names, He said, “Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of the heavens and the earth, and I know what you reveal and what you conceal?” (33) And when We said to the angels, “Prostrate to Adam,” so they prostrated, except for Iblis. He refused, and was arrogant, and was one of the unbelievers. (34) And We said, “O Adam, inhabit the Garden, you and your wife, and eat from it abundantly wherever you wish, but do not approach this tree, lest you become wrongdoers.” (35) Then Shaytan caused them to slip from it, and brought them out of the state they were in. And We said, “Go down, some of you enemies to one another, and you will have on earth a dwelling place and enjoyment for a while.” 36) So Adam received words from his Allah, and He turned to him. Indeed, He is the One who repents, the Most Merciful. (37) We said, “Come down from it all of you, and if guidance comes to you from Me, then whoever follows My guidance – they will have no fear, nor will they grieve. (38) And those who disbelieve and deny Our signs – those are the companions of the Fire. They will abide therein forever. (39) O Children of Israel, remember My blessings which I bestowed upon you, and fulfill My covenant. I will fulfill your covenant with Me, and fear Me. (40) And believe in what I have revealed, confirming what is with you, and do not be the first to disbelieve in it, and do not exchange My signs for a small price, and fear Me. (41)}
{And when We said to the angels, “Prostrate to Adam,” so they prostrated except for Iblis. He said, “Should I prostrate to Him whom I created of clay?” (61) He said, “Have you seen this whom you have honored over me? If you delay until the Day of Resurrection, his offspring will certainly afflict you except for a few.” (62) He said, “Go, and whoever of them follows you, for Hell is your reward with an abundant reward.” (63) And provoke those who You conquered them with your voice, and brought upon them your horse and your foot, and shared with them their wealth and children, and promised them, but Shaytan promises them nothing but delusion (64) Indeed, over My servants you have no authority, and your Allah is sufficient as a disposer of affairs.}
{He said, “O Shaytan, what prevented you from prostrating to what I created with my own hand? Were you arrogant or were you among the high? (75) He said, ‘I am better than him. You created me from fire and you created him from clay.’ (76) He said, ‘Then get out of it, for you are accursed.’ (77) And my curse is upon you until the Day of Judgment. (78) He said. Allah, then wait for me until the Day when they will be resurrected (79) He said, “You are one of the waiters” (80) for the Day of the Known Time (81) He said, “By Your might, I will mislead them all (82) Except Your sincere servants among them (83) He said, “Then the truth, and the truth, I say (84) I will fill Hell with you and those of them who follow you, all of them.” (85) Say, “I do not ask you for any reward, and I am not one of those who hesitate. (86) Indeed, it is only a reminder to the worlds. (87) And you will know his information after a while. (88)}
——————–
Therefore, we believe that the French Revolution only occurred for one main, central goal, which is to occupy Misr, Muslim and Arab countries, and create a new religion on earth.
This result supports and reinforces the idea that the French Revolution only occurred to prepare a campaign for the region to forge and erase the book and write another book, which is the book of the Al-Yahoud… and this is consistent with the idea that the story that the readers are talking about is actually about the book. It is recent and occurred in a recent period of time, not an ancient period.
The plan to occupy Misr… may be the reason because among its goals was also to create this false awareness in the mind of the Muslim through a false story, and make him believe that the Qur’an is talking about the story of (Abu Jahl, Abu Sufyan, etc. inside Mecca).
——————–
As for the Ottomans
There is a strong historical relationship between the (Turkish) state of Istanbul and France. As we mentioned, the oldest Turkish embassy is in France, and the first Turkish trip to Europe was to France, which had an impact on an intellectual and urban transformation in Turkey 300 years ago.
The emergence of the Ottomans in the region, in the same period as the French Revolution. We do not know the Turks except at that age.
As I said, do not believe the story of a caliphate before the West, an imaginary world that enslaved people within it and made Muslims and Arabs not imagine a history except with the Turks, making the Turks very present in the Muslim imagination.
Because where was this caliphate during the entry of the Western occupier?!
The West only fought the inhabitants of the region, and we did not hear any battle in our popular history between the Turks and the West. Because this observation is striking, the history writer tried to eliminate it by inventing false stories of battles between the Ottomans and the West.
But if you look at the names of those battles… you will find them very funny names, as all of their names have Greek names, evoking Greek space to embody an imaginary world… There are no battles with the names of Arab places according to the names of the residents of the region, but Greek names.
Also note: When the French enter a country in the region to occupy it, you immediately find that an Ottoman Turk appears and assumes the position of ruler of the country.
In Misr, Tunisia, Algeria and the Levant.
The strong Turkish-French partnership…..indicates that the story is actually modern and was in cooperation with the Turks…and that the story that the readers are talking about is modern and took place during the emergence of the Ottomans (Turks) in our world.