Newt Gingrich: I'd Support A Muslim Running For President Only If They'd Commit To 'Give Up Sharia'

Newt Gingrich told a South Carolina town hall audience on Tuesday that he would be open to seeing a Muslim-American run for president, as long as the candidate denounced Sharia law and didn't seek to impose his or her views on others.

At a town hall meeting in West Columbia, S.C., a man asked Gingrich if he would ever "support a Muslim-American running for president."

"Would you endorse...a Muslim-American, [who] could possibly be running for president, given that we had a woman running for president in Hillary Clinton, and we had a Jewish-American, in Joe Lieberman, running for vice president?" he asked.

"A truly modern person who happened to worship Allah would not be a threat," Gingrich replied. "A person who belonged to any kind of belief in Sharia, any kind of effort to impose that on the rest of us, would be a mortal threat."

In the past, Gingrich has repeatedly decried Sharia, a legal code derived from Islam, and called for a federal law to pre-emptively bar its use in any U.S. courts. He didn't soften his position on Tuesday, saying his support would be contingent on a candidate's willingness to denounce Sharia.

"I think it would depend entirely on whether they would commit in public to give up Sharia," he said, referencing his support for the bill and drawing cheers from listeners at the event. "If they're a modern person integrated into the modern world, and they're prepared to recognize all religions, that's one thing. On the other hand, if they're the Saudis, who demand that we respect them while they refuse to allow either a Jew or a Christian to worship in Saudi Arabia, that's something different."

He pointed to an acquaintance as an example of a "truly modern" Muslim.

"We have a friend in Arizona who serves in the U.S. Navy, who's a medical doctor, who's Muslim -- but he's a totally modern person, trying to find ways to bring Islam into modernity," Gingrich said.

Former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain said he wouldn't be comfortable appointing a Muslim to a judgeship or cabinet position. He later apologized.

Comments

[Richard Aron]

05:45 PM on 05/07/2012

Well Newt, get your fanatic christian believes out of our lives and don't force medical procedures on our daughters and wives just because you think it is the right "christian" thing to do. Total hypocrisy.

[Samantha Tweeten]

11:22 AM on 04/19/2012

So, he basically has no understanding of what sharia actually is.

[BilaalUSA]

11:53 PM on 04/01/2012

I wish Mr. Gingrich had elaborated a little more on the modernity of his Muslim friend. An example of what his friend has done to bring a more modern approach to Islam to the forefront would have helped me to better understand his position. I don't think the questioner ever asked asked Mr. Gingrich about an extreme Islamist running for the presidency. If for example the question was: Would you consider a Christian running for the presidency, he would not have said that he would support the idea providing the candidate did not take a literal interpretation of the Bible into the context of secular law. No, he would have simply said - Sure! Why not?? To a vigorous round of applause.

[Steven Libby]

03:59 PM on 04/02/2012

I have no way of knowing if this is who he was referring to, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was talking about Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, the subject of the film The Third Jihad.

[Steven Libby]

07:47 PM on 03/28/2012

(Part 2) Finally, consider the Founding Fathers’ intentions when they required that a President be a natural-born citizen and living in this country for at least 14 years. From a November 14, 2011 paper by The Congressional Research Service: “… (D)elegates at the Convention… feared that ‘foreigners without a long residency in the Country ... bring with them, not only attachments to other Countries; but ideas of Govt. so distinct from ours that in every point of view they are dangerous.’28” So, the Founders didn’t want a President’s loyalties to be to any other country or to any other “ideas of government.” And did they believe that only foreigners may be disloyal to this country? No, they made even some U.S. citizens ineligible. So why is it so controversial when Newt says that a Muslim running for President should first renounce any goals to advance Sharia? This is actually in line with the goals and precautions that the Founders built into the Constitution. It’s also why voters were presented with a challenge when Kennedy (a Catholic) ran for President and non-Catholics worried that he may place loyalty to the Pope over loyalty to the U.S.; or why some voters might have worried that Lieberman would have placed loyalty to Israel over loyalty to the U.S. It may be politically incorrect to question the loyalty of a candidate running for President, but our Founding Fathers didn’t believe in political correctness.

[Steven Libby]

07:43 PM on 03/28/2012

Gingrich’s concerns expressed in this video are valid and in line with the intentions of our Founding Fathers. First, he DIDN’T say that being a Muslim, by itself, disqualifies one to be President. So, his position isn’t really anti-Muslim as some are portraying it. His concern is over a possible attempt to advance Sharia, and his understanding of Sharia is as it is practiced in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran. I doubt any American could argue with a straight face that the legal systems of those countries are compatible with the legal system, ideals, and freedoms we have here in America. Some of you reading this are probably thinking “But, an AMERICAN Muslim wouldn’t push for those kinds of laws here!” Well, I’m sure that there are those in Britain who never thought there would come a day when they would see posters put up in neighborhoods with large Muslim populations pronouncing “This is a Sharia controlled zone!” Plus, remember that recent meeting between the State Department and the Organization for Islamic Cooperation that Newt mentioned in the video and said he was against? The OIC is asking Western countries to enact laws to criminalize speech and actions that are critical of Islam. There are, in fact, Muslims here in the U.S. already advocating for this (including, it’s hard for me to believe, a law professor). If ever enacted, these laws would threaten our constitutional freedom of speech. They should never be allowed.

[Andythelawyer]

04:39 PM on 03/27/2012

Hey Newt -- I'd accept a Christian for President only if he or she promised not to let their religious beliefs influence any governmental decision.

[Puncastle]

02:16 AM on 03/28/2012

It's more like saying that he would support a Christian if they'd commit to giving up Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.

[Jack Jackington]

02:21 PM on 03/18/2012

Support Ron Paul, America will stop meddling in other countries affairs, and no one will have a problem with them anymore

[Ayana Fakhir]

09:55 PM on 01/27/2012

Actually, for all you "knowledgeable people," Muslims are charged with following the law of the land in which they live. Unless we live in a "Muslim" country, where Shariah law MAY be practiced, then we follow the law of the land where we live. Hence, there is no Muslim that I know and I know hundreds who follow the Shariah. American Muslims follow State law, federal laws, local laws, the Constitution, etc., etc. How stupid would it be for us to stone to death and adulterer when murder is illegal in all the 50 states. Give me a break. You all must think we are some kind of idiots. No, wait, you're the idiots.

[truthupontruth]

02:00 PM on 01/21/2012

In a sound-bite world, i'm gonna take the prerogative of hearing only "I would support a Muslim", and then throwing him to the Christian Right to fend for himself. Fair is fair.....

[Lacey Epperson]

08:41 PM on 01/19/2012

What Newt stated seriously concerns me. I'm going to apologize in advance because I know what I'm about to say is going to really offend some people but there's just no other way to make my statement without being blunt. Are our leaders really that blind to think that Islam can produce a trustworthy individual? Obama thinks we can reason with the Taliban. He has endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood and now our next possible President wouldn't have a problem having a Muslim leading this country? I guess he doesn't know anything about Islam at all. Gosh, the spiritual dullness and blindness of our leaders astounds me. It's like they're in a stupor of some sort.

[DaneRak123]

10:27 AM on 01/21/2012

Really? Obama is negotiating with the Taliban because they're reasonable or because there is no other low-cost way to save face and end the operation in Afghanistan? And what about the Muslim Brotherhood - do you think it is dictated by anything but realism and necessity?

As someone who has actually done research, I suggest you read a bit of history - so you can speak with empirical fact rather than some unverifiable claims. You will learn that yes Muslims, like others, can be good or bad, but "Islam" actually produced more competent leaders, statesmen, scientists and philosophers than the entire West combined, up until maybe a couple of centuries ago or so.

[cochise59]

09:12 AM on 01/25/2012

"Islam" actually produced more competent leaders, statesmen, scientists and philosophe­rs than the entire West combined, up until maybe a couple of centuries ago or so"

ridiculous nonsence! how could you possibly defend such subjective hyperbole?

[ando one]

03:59 PM on 01/21/2012

Dane has made a good point that it is far better to find a diplomatic solution than a military solution any day of the week. So making your blunt point in an emotional illogical way is sure to offend not only Muslims, but anyone that believes in freedom of religion. You are essentially stating that it is ok to have freedom of religion as long as you approve of the religion.
FYI the middle East only comprises appx. 20% of the worlds Muslim population. Extremist groups only comprise a very small percentage of the middle east. Easily 95% of all muslims disassociate themselves from groups such as the Taliban because they do not follow what is written in the Koran. Hence most Muslims are what we call mainstream Muslims.
Additionally the United States only has between 5 and 6% Muslims, since this is a Democratic society, A Muslim president would not be able to impose Sharia law even if it was his or her greatest desire.
There, a logical argument.

[donjuandelakey]

12:15 PM on 01/19/2012

First: There is no mention of Sha'riah in the Quran. It was created afterwards by followers of Islam. It is a set of GUIDELINES not LAWS that teach followers they need to clean themselves before praying and touching a Quran, to respect women, to give to the needy. It has nothing to do with killing or lashing. That has been created much after the Quran by different sects that looked to create a stricter rule over the people, just as Chrisitians created laws. Don't forget all of the calls for murder and genocide in the Bible, don't just focus on the "bad parts" of the Quran because Muslims are todays blacks and Jews. Second: If we all lived like TRUE muslims are supposed to, this country would be in a better place. Out of the three major Abrahamic religions, Islam is the most respectful of all people! "In Islam, all people, Muslims and non-Muslims, stand to God in identically the same relationship".

We're not as bad as we seem. I'm muslim and came here when i was 3, letterman in three sports, dating a christian! Stop listening to politicians about religion, they don't know anything! not even about their own religion. If you are scared or worried about Islam, please pick up a Quran and read. Or if you don't want to do that, look it up online from credible sources. Read "Islam" by Karen Armstrong, a catholic nun who took her time to study it. God bless

[Kebert Xela]

02:56 PM on 01/25/2012

I have friends and coworkers who are Muslim, they are truly just like everyone else. Except I would trust them more than many so called Christians I know.

[Gui Montag]

09:35 AM on 01/19/2012

I don't see what's so controversial about that. Doesn't the Constitution state that there is only one law of the land and that's American state law. I would expect any other candidate from any other religion to denounce religious law too.

[Lacey Epperson]

09:52 PM on 01/19/2012

If a Muslim were to denounce Islam, he would be sought out by his own to be murdered. There is no way a Muslim could serve in such a capacity without putting himself in danger or putting the people in danger by his affiliation with Islam.

[DaneRak123]

10:28 AM on 01/21/2012

Oh and I also suggest you read the punishment for apostasy and blasphemy in the bible, and whilst you're at it, compare the rights of women in Christianity etc. with those of Islam and Judaism. Then let us all all know which is the more 'liberal' religion.

[Puncastle]

01:10 AM on 01/22/2012

Following Shari'ah and following the law of the land are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that all citizens have freedom of religion.

[Vlad Roudenko]

11:41 PM on 01/18/2012

Newt should have stopped mincing words and said : I would have endorsed a lapsed Muslim if one decided to run for presidency.

[Jan Allen McDaniel]

11:53 AM on 01/19/2012

He took care to point to one among many practicing Muslims who meet his criterion--Dr. Jasser:

http://www.aifdemocracy.org/

[Vlad Roudenko]

05:33 PM on 01/19/2012

Well, he is just not that vocal about Shari'ah but he certainly follows these laws.

[The Knocker]

11:50 PM on 01/20/2012

I really its about time you receive some help Jan. Lets hope your condition is a cover under medicare.

[Andythelawyer]

04:40 PM on 03/27/2012

If he'd meant it, he'd have said it.

[Haroldpom]

08:12 PM on 01/18/2012

Who could possibly argue with Newt's position on moderate Muslim and sharia law? My only concern would be that it would be difficult to find a moderate Muslim. They don't come with any identification showing that they are moderates.

[Doug Sandlin]

11:13 PM on 01/18/2012

Millions of our fellow Americans worship as Muslims.

Very close to all of them show themselves to be moderate, via their words and actions --- far more so than many Christians, in fact.

American Muslims are good American citizens; it seems that simple respect would indicate that we accept them as such, until they ever show themselves to be otherwise, as a group (which we won't see -- like all people, Muslims' views are as individual as everyone else's).

[Haroldpom]

07:21 AM on 01/19/2012

Are they really as moderate as you seem to think they are? Are we being taken in by their "moderation" or what seem like moderation when compared to their fanatic brethren who seek to do us harm. What is being taught in the mosques supported by Saudi Arabian extremists? I see millions of Islamic fanatics in the ME and I can't believe we didn't import many of them to North America just waiting to cause trouble here.

[naaman]

09:45 AM on 01/19/2012

..."until they ever show themselves to be otherwise," - by then it's too late.

[Lacey Epperson]

10:08 PM on 01/19/2012

That's an interesting observation.

[riff4u]

06:27 PM on 01/18/2012

Sharia which for the most part is undefined can mean something different to most Muslims, however most agree that it means praying, fasting, giving charity, and going for Hajj. Since Newt is as ignorant about Islam as the rest of that comical group..........to him, giving up Sharia Law would be to give up being Muslim. That's what he is essentially saying.

[naaman]

09:46 AM on 01/19/2012

I suggest you look futher into shariah - it's a lot more complex.

[riff4u]

01:42 PM on 01/19/2012

The vast majority of American Muslims including myself look at Sharia as the basic tenants of faith and little more. Muslims are required to accept the laws of the land they reside in ..........thus the US Constitution is fine with us.

[Bill Sampson]

10:08 PM on 01/19/2012

Watch the following video for a better understanding of who is supporting the islamophobic bigots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecGn45sKcfo

[riff4u]

10:41 PM on 01/19/2012

It's certainly an organized movement and like most hate groups they cater to the less intelligent lowest denominator.