Did Thomas Jefferson's writings show religious prejudice or pragmatic diplomacy regarding Muslims?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Thomas Jefferson owned an English translation of the Qur’an, welcomed a Muslim ambassador to the White House in 1805, and wrote that his aim in protecting religious liberty was to “comprehend… the Christian and Mahometan [Muslim]” among others—facts that scholars use to argue he combined principled pluralism with ambivalent personal views toward Islam [1] [2] [3]. Historians stress two competing threads in Jefferson’s record: a legal-philosophical commitment to broad religious toleration and curiosity about Islam, and a contemporaneous set of Protestant prejudices and practical diplomatic calculations shaped by eighteenth-century British sources and geopolitics [4] [5].
1. Jefferson as an architect of legal pluralism—explicit inclusion of Muslims
Jefferson framed his concept of religious liberty as intentionally non‑Christian: in his autobiography he described legislative intent “to comprehend… the Christian and Mahometan [Muslim]” under the protection of the new republic, and later practice showed Muslims could be treated as citizens in principle—evidenced by his ownership of a Qur’an and the fact that a Tunisian envoy visited the White House under his presidency in 1805 [2] [1]. Scholars including Denise Spellberg emphasize Jefferson’s “universalism of religious toleration,” arguing his public policy and writings established a constitutional space that could extend to Muslims as full political participants [5].
2. Intellectual curiosity and sources of knowledge about Islam
Jefferson’s engagement with Islamic texts was driven by intellectual curiosity and legal study: he bought an English translation of the Qur’an as a law student and collected books on North Africa and Islamic polities—materials that shaped how he thought about religion, law, and foreign peoples [1] [6]. Oxford‑published scholarship notes his views of Islam were formed through transatlantic British publications and English diplomatic precedents with Muslim states such as the Ottoman and North African powers, which influenced both his understanding and his rhetoric [4].
3. Evidence of religious prejudice in Jefferson’s private and public rhetoric
Multiple sources record that Jefferson, like many of his Protestant contemporaries, expressed critical views of Islam as a faith in some contexts—calling Islam (alongside Catholicism) stifling to free enquiry—and accepted common eighteenth‑century formulations that treated Islam as doctrinally erroneous even while advocating tolerance [7] [5]. Libertarianism.org highlights that anti‑Islamic tropes from the Reformation and Cato’s Letters persisted among the Founders, and that Jefferson was once smeared in partisan warfare as “secretly” a Muslim—an accusation born of contemporary rhetorical uses of Islam rather than Jefferson’s own embrace of it [3].
4. Pragmatic diplomacy: state interest, not theological endorsement
Several accounts emphasize that Jefferson’s toleration had practical as well as principled motives: he used knowledge of Muslim law and precedent to support diplomatic and commercial interactions and to argue Muslims were not automatic enemies under Anglo‑American legal frames—helpful in negotiating with North African states and avoiding conflict [8]. TeachMideast argues Jefferson’s inclusion of Muslims in toleration was driven in part by a desire for a stable state “without violence or upheaval,” indicating a pragmatic strand to his approach [8].
5. Contradictions born of race, slavery, and the limits of tolerance
Documentary and film treatments stress the period’s contradictions: while Jefferson could theorize Muslims as equal citizens, the reality of slavery in the early Republic meant many Muslims—enslaved West Africans—were denied rights Jefferson claimed to champion; scholars note his tolerance did not erase racial hierarchies or the lived exclusions of many Muslims in America [1] [9]. Spellberg and others frame Jefferson’s stance as simultaneously expansive in legal imagination and constrained by the era’s racial and imperial assumptions [5] [4].
6. How to reconcile the two readings: prejudice and pragmatism together
Available sources present Jefferson as both a proponent of broad religious liberty who specifically named Muslims as protected, and as a product of his time who held and sometimes expressed Protestant stereotypes about Islam; his Qur’an ownership and diplomatic practices show serious study and strategic engagement, while his private critiques and the era’s anti‑Islamic rhetoric show persistent prejudice [2] [5] [3]. Historians cited in the reporting argue the most accurate portrait is not either/or but a blend: principled constitutional pluralism plus pragmatic diplomacy, shaded by contemporary prejudices and the structural injustices of slavery [4] [9].
Limitations and further reading: this analysis relies on the provided contemporary summaries and scholarship; for deeper primary‑text evidence of Jefferson’s private letters and specific quotations on Islam, consult the works and archival sources discussed in Spellberg’s book and the Oxford Research Encyclopedia entry cited above [5] [4].