Why Islam Is Incompatible with American Democracy

The United States is built on a secular Constitution that enshrines popular sovereignty, individual liberties, separation of church and state, and equality under man-made law. Orthodox Islamic doctrine, as understood by most classical and contemporary scholars, rejects these foundations in favor of God’s absolute rule through Sharia. Here are the core reasons for this irreconcilable clash:

Divine Sovereignty vs. “We the People”

The U.S. Constitution begins with “We the People” as the ultimate source of political authority. In orthodox Islam, sovereignty (hakimiyya) belongs exclusively to Allah. The Quran declares: “Legislation is not but for Allah” (12:40). Thinkers like Sayyid Qutb and Ayatollah Khomeini called man-made constitutions shirk (polytheism—because they place humans in the role of lawgiver. To an orthodox Muslim, swearing an oath to “support and defend the Constitution” (as required of officials and citizens) risks compromising tawhid if the Constitution ever conflicts with Sharia.

Sharia Supremacy vs. Constitutional Supremacy

Sharia is considered divine, eternal, and superior to any human document. Traditional rulings on apostasy (punishable by death), blasphemy, homosexuality, gender roles, inheritance, and interest banking directly contradict First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment protections. Even “moderate” applications often demand Sharia’s precedence: many American Muslim organizations (e.g., CAIR, ISNA) have historically supported the idea that the Quran, not the Constitution, is the highest authority for Muslims. A 2011 survey found significant minorities of U.S. Muslims believing Sharia should override the Constitution in certain matters.

No Separation of Religion and State

American democracy rests on the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses—no state religion, no religious test for office. Islam, in its classical form, is a total system (din) where religion and politics are inseparable. The goal of many orthodox movements is to establish Allah’s rule on earth. Implementing full American-style secularism is viewed as kufr (unbelief) by traditional scholars. As one prominent voice put it: “The mosque and state are one.”

Equality vs. Islamic Hierarchy

The Constitution guarantees equal protection and rejects religious discrimination. Traditional Sharia institutes legal inequality: non-Muslims (dhimmi status, jizya tax), women (half inheritance, testimony worth half a man’s), and mandates punishments (hudud) that violate “cruel and unusual” standards. LGBTQ rights, freedom to change religion, and unrestricted free speech (including criticizing Islam) are non-negotiable in America but prohibited under orthodox Sharia.

In short, while reformist or cultural Muslims can thrive under the Constitution by treating faith as private, orthodox Islam—committed to Sharia as Allah’s unchangeable law—views the core principles of American constitutional democracy as heretical. The two systems cannot fully coexist without one yielding to the other.

Why Air Traffic Control and the TSA Should Be Privatized

Every day, millions of Americans depend on the air transportation system to travel safely and efficiently. Yet, behind the scenes, the infrastructure that makes this possible — air traffic control (ATC) and airport security — remains hampered by bureaucracy, outdated technology, and political gridlock. The United States should privatize both Air Traffic Control and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Doing so would increase efficiency, reduce political interference, improve customer experience, and allow the government to focus on regulation and safety rather than slow-moving operations.

Efficiency and Innovation

Government-run systems, while stable, are often slow to adapt. The FAA’s air traffic control network still relies on radar-based technology from the mid-20th century, even as other nations have transitioned to modern satellite-based systems. Because federal agencies must navigate complex procurement rules and congressional oversight, innovation is stifled. In contrast, a privatized ATC organization could upgrade equipment faster, streamline training, and implement cost-saving innovations without waiting for political approval.

The success of Canada’s NAV CANADA demonstrates this clearly. As a nonprofit private corporation, NAV CANADA manages one of the world’s safest and most efficient air traffic control systems, funded by user fees instead of taxpayer dollars. Its adoption of advanced navigation and communication technologies has cut flight times, reduced fuel use, and enhanced safety — all while remaining financially stable. The U.S. could achieve similar success by freeing ATC from the constraints of federal bureaucracy.

Reducing Political Interference

Few things disrupt essential services more than government gridlock. Federal shutdowns have repeatedly threatened to halt or delay air traffic operations and TSA paychecks, despite the vital role these services play. Privatization would insulate these functions from political gamesmanship. A self-funded, independent ATC and TSA could operate continuously, financed by user or service fees rather than unpredictable congressional appropriations. Leadership and staffing decisions could be made based on merit and performance, not politics.

By separating day-to-day operations from the political process, the government can ensure stability and accountability. The FAA would still set and enforce safety standards, but it would no longer be burdened with running a massive operational bureaucracy.

Pages: Page 1, Page 2