Skip to comments.An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran
Posted on 01/19/2007 6:35:59 PM PST by cf_river_rat
Is Keith Ellison actually the first Muslim to serve in the U. S. Congress? According to the national media, the answer is a resounding Yes! For example, among the numerous print media stories, the Washington Post proclaimed: Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, and the Associated Press (Pakistan) similarly announced, Keith Ellison, a 43-year old lawyer from Minnesota, became the first Muslim member of the US Congress. Among broadcast media, MSNBC pronounced him the first Muslim elected to Congress, and CNN reported that, In a political first, a Muslim has been elected to serve in the U. S. Congress.
However, as is often the case with the mainstream media, they were wrong: Keith Ellison is not the first Muslim Member of Congress; a Muslim served in Congress during the Founding Era.
The first Muslim Member of Congress was John Randolph of Virginia, who served in Congress from 1799-1834. Significantly, Francis Scott Key, author of the Star Spangled Banner, befriended Randolph and faithfully shared Christ with him. Randolph eventually converted from Islam to Christianity and became a strong personal advocate for his newfound faith. (Key also shared Christianity with other Muslims, and even bought them copies of the Christian Bible printed in Arabic.)
(Excerpt) Read more at wallbuilders.com ...
How come we never heard about Mitt Romney demanding to be sworn in on "The Book of Mormon" ???
I thought Hussein Obama was the first Muslim elected to congress.
bump for publicity
Fascinating, thank you.
Ellison may not be the first Muslim in Congress but I hope he's the last. Ellison seems to be a true believer. A devout Muslim's loyalty is first, last and always to the Islamic Nation. At least we know that Ellison won't be involved with any pork barrel spending.
This guy is a member of "The Nation of Islam" which simply is not considered to be a truly Islamic organization.
He claims to be an American and Christianity is his faith.
Is there a second source for this?
Hugh A. Garland, The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1853), Vol. II, p. 102, to Dr. Brockenbrough, September 25, 1818.
Garland, Life of John Randolph, pp. 87-88, in a letter from Francis Scott Key, May-June 1816; pp. 99-100, Randolphs letter to Francis Scott Key, September 7, 1818; pp. 103-104, Keys letter to Randolph; 106-107, Keys reply to Randolphs letter of May 3, 1819; and pp. 108-109, Keys reply to Randolphs letter of August 8, 1819.
I have heard of John Randolph of Roanoke. He was a conservative gentleman, and I believe was descended from Pocahantas.
The idea that he was a Muslim is new to me, however, and seems hard to believe. Why would a native born American have been a Muslim?
The article goes on to say, some of the African slaves brought to America were Muslims, although that, too is not something I have really seen anything on, either. I've always heard them referred to as animists. The slave merchants were Muslims, but did they sell people of their own faith? Up to ten percent of the blacks they sold? That seems odd, too.
Does anyone know anything more about this? About Randolph or about Muslim slaves? Can these claims be confirmed?
The Black Muslim movement was relatively recent, and has no connections that I know of to earlier black experience in America. Most slaves by the time of the Emancipation were Christians, I believe. Black Muslims argued that Christianity was the religion of the slave masters, imposed upon blacks--but without realizing that slavery originated with Arab slave masters.
It is always amazing how much is left out of the history books.
"This guy is a member of "The Nation of Islam" which simply is not considered to be a truly Islamic organization."
Which authorities have decided that, and why do they continue to be counted as Muslim, in population reference sources.
I can't find a text of Garland on the internet, but I did find this:
This is the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, which is famed as being more accurate than the later editions. It says, at the bottom of the first page:
"The best biography is that by Henry Adams, John Randolph (Boston, 1882), in the "American Statesmen Series." There is also a biography, which, however, contains many inaccuracies, by Hugh A. Garland (2 vols., New York, 1851)."
So, I don't think I would credit either of these statements, about Muslim slaves or about John Randolph, without some further evidence.
But see my posts 13 and 16. I think we need some confirming evidence before getting too excited about this.
The Orthodox Muslims.
and why do they continue to be counted as Muslim, in population reference sources.
For the same reason that Mormons are counted as Christians when most Orthodox Christians do not consider them so. It is how they consider themselves that counts in that case.
One is a civil label that is self awarded and one is a religious label that depends on the majority of the religious group you are claiming to belong to accepting that claim.
I have been unable to find any information about John Randolph being a Muslim. He was renowned as an eccentric, so it wouldn't have been overly shocking.
"The Orthodox Muslims."
Is that an organization, who are they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.