“I don’t think I’m against that, actually”

Tucker Carlson is one of America’s most prominent conservative commentators and journalists. He is best known for hosting Tucker Carlson Tonight (2016–2023) on Fox News, which became one of the highest-rated cable news shows in American history. Yet in recent months, Carlson has veered into increasingly erratic territory, platforming guests who peddle wild theories and baffling assertions—such as one who said that COVID-19 was engineered to render Jews immune, and, notoriously, Nick Fuentes.

More strikingly, he has begun to soften, even retract, his long-held dislike for Islam and its doctrines. Raised in the Episcopal Church and apparently still a practicing Episcopalian by his statements in recent interviews, Carlson once voiced unsparing disdain for Muslims and Islam in America, declaring, “the attitudes of faithful Muslims are not Western at all” and that they harbor “a tolerance of violence you don’t find among, say, Presbyterians.” He clearly insisted, “Men and women are not treated equally under Sharia right now.”

But lately, Carlson’s tone has changed. Episodes of his podcast reveal a jarring pivot. He now questions whether Hamas is truly villainous and wonders whether Sharia is inherently malign.

At one point, mocking concerns about Islamic Sharia, Carlson sarcastically told a guest, “Sharia law is bad, Seth, I don’t know if you’ve heard that—it’s bad. It’s worse than what’s happening in New York and Detroit. It’s just bad. HAHAHA. I don’t know why. Just like years of brainwashing. I just like Sharia law.” He went further, ridiculing concerns over the common definition that Islam means submission. “You know what Islam means? Submission. … And I was like, I kind of think submission to God is like the whole point of life. But I didn’t say anything. I was like, I don’t think I’m against that actually.”

This new discovery about Islam—as if it were a creed he once misunderstood—was followed by a troubling assertion about the terrorist group Hamas.

Reacting to reports that 45 Christians had been killed in Gaza since the war began, Carlson naïvely wondered, “If Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization, there obviously won’t be Christians in Hamas,” otherwise Christians would not have been killed. Here Carlson failed to recognize that Hamas uses Christians and other civilians as human shields. Rather than understanding this grim reality, he concluded that the deaths of Christians suggested Hamas could not be a jihadi group, since they supposedly protected other non-Muslims who then ended up being killed.

Worse, Carlson additionally dismissed the description of Hamas as “Islamic extremists,” adding, “I don’t know if that’s true, by the way. Seems more like a political organization, but whatever it is, they’re telling us constantly they’re al-Qaeda. So, it can’t also be true that Christians are members of al-Qaeda.”

Online, Muslims have hailed these remarks with fervor, some even voicing prayers for Carlson’s conversion to Islam. Yet his words are profoundly troubling—not just for their substance, but for the megaphone he wields. His clips explode across platforms, devoured by millions.

Carlson is wrong and his comments reveal both confusion and carelessness.

Islam is not merely about submitting to God in some general sense shared by all monotheistic religions. Islam is a comprehensive system of submission to Allah and his prescribed commands, as precisely taught and modeled by Muhammad, in his teachings, wars, and actions. This system, often described as Sharia, is not a neutral ethical framework similar to other religions. Under Sharia, non-Muslims are not equal in rights and responsibilities. Muslims aren’t free to change their religion, and non-Muslims aren’t free to challenge Islam or any of its commands or figures. Jews are described in Islamic texts as the “worst of creatures.” The life of a Christian is valued less than that of a Muslim. A Muslim man may marry a Christian or Jewish woman, as his faith and position are seen as superior, but a Muslim woman cannot marry outside Islam.

Carlson is naïve and absolutely irresponsible when he mocks legitimate concerns about Sharia. If Sharia were ever imposed on him personally, he would not enjoy the freedoms he takes for granted—certainly not free speech nor the right to live openly as an Episcopalian.

His comments on Hamas reveal a similar lack of seriousness. Even more shocking is Carlson’s ignorance of Hamas’s own stated goals. Its founding Charter explicitly identifies its mission as the continuation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s work to establish an Islamic state ruled by Sharia. To minimize this reality, especially after Hamas’s unprecedented Oct. 7 attack on Israel—the bloodiest assault on Jews since the Holocaust—is irresponsible in the extreme.

In times of global confusion and conflict, political commentators bear responsibility to speak with clarity. This is not the moment to muddy the waters by questioning whether Hamas is actually bad, or to present Sharia as a misunderstood utopia. To use a podcast to toss out careless, provocative remarks is not only reckless, it risks misleading millions at a moment when truth is needed most.