Americanism Versus Islamism

The Center for Human Equality, founded by Russell McAlmond, advances Ethical Individualism: every human being is a unique individual of equal inherent dignity, to be judged solely by personal character, actions, and humanity rather than by group membership, religious status, sex, or any imposed hierarchy. This principle demands equality of respect for all persons simply as human beings.

Americanism—the political philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, securing unalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through limited government, equal protection under law, and a free economy—embodies this truth for every individual.

Islamism, the political ideology that seeks to implement Sharia (Islamic law derived from the Quran, Hadith, and classical jurisprudence) as the comprehensive law of the state, does not. It creates unequal human classes based on divine authority, denies equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, and establishes men as superior to women in key legal rights and practices.

This denial of Ethical Individualism harms human relations through institutionalized group judgment and undermines economic viability by restricting the free-market capitalism that has proven superior at generating prosperity. The foundational texts of Sharia make these hierarchies explicit.

Americanism rejects group-based legal status. Citizens and residents stand equal before the law regardless of religion, sex, or belief. Property rights, contracts, and economic opportunity are individual, not contingent on creed or gender. The free market, as the economic corollary, relies on voluntary exchange, secure property, and rule of law that treats participants as autonomous agents.

It harnesses self-interest, ingenuity, and specialization for mutual benefit, producing sustained gains in living standards, innovation, and opportunity. Societies organized on these lines have demonstrated the capacity to absorb people of every background into expanding prosperity.

Islamism and classical Sharia operate differently. They organize society according to religious hierarchy grounded in divine revelation. Quran 9:29 states: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture—[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled” (Sahih International).

This verse establishes the basis for the jizya poll tax and the subordinate dhimmi status of non-Muslims (“People of the Book”). Classical jurisprudence elaborated accompanying restrictions—limitations on new houses of worship, public religious expression, distinctive clothing in some eras, and exclusion from authority over Muslims—that marked inferior status. Apostasy and blasphemy carried severe penalties in traditional interpretations. This is group judgment by religious affiliation, precisely what Ethical Individualism rejects.

Gender inequality is likewise foundational.

Quran 4:11 instructs: “Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are [only] daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one’s estate. And if there is only one, for her is half” (Sahih International). In specified kinship configurations, male heirs receive double the share of female heirs of the same degree. Quran 2:282, addressing financial contracts, directs: “And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses—so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her” (Sahih International).

Two women’s testimony equals one man’s in this context. Men may marry up to four wives under conditions of fairness (Quran 4:3); women may not. Divorce initiation, guardianship, and other family-law provisions systematically favor men. These rules derive from the text and the major schools of jurisprudence.

Modern Muslim-majority states vary—some apply hybrid systems or reforms—but where Sharia shapes personal status or criminal law, these differentials persist. The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap reports consistently place many Muslim-majority countries near the bottom on overall parity, economic participation, and political empowerment.

These hierarchies damage human relations. When law ranks people by religious membership or sex, it institutionalizes the presumption that some individuals are less equal in dignity or agency. Trust, cooperation, and impartial justice suffer. Non-Muslims and women face formal barriers that Ethical Individualism would treat as immoral group judgment. Social and legal incentives reward conformity to religious and gender roles rather than individual merit and character.

The economic consequences follow. Free-market capitalism thrives when individuals of both sexes and all beliefs can own property securely, contract freely, innovate without fear of group-based confiscation or restriction, and participate fully in the labor force. Classical Islamic inheritance rules can fragment capital and hinder accumulation. The traditional absence of a robust corporate form and the waqf endowment system locked resources into less flexible uses.

Bans on riba (interest) require workarounds that can raise transaction costs. More broadly, lower average scores on economic freedom indices (property rights, rule of law, trade) characterize many OIC countries relative to freer jurisdictions. Innovation metrics tell a related story: while some oil-rich or reformist states invest heavily, overall scientific output, patents per capita, and high-impact research lag relative to population size compared with societies emphasizing individual rights and open institutions.

Historical analysis points to institutional factors after the medieval Golden Age—including the alliance of clerical and political authority that marginalized independent merchants and intellectuals—as contributors to relative stagnation while Europe developed the legal and economic foundations of modernity.

Oil wealth has allowed some Gulf states high per-capita incomes without full liberalization of personal status or political equality, but this is resource-driven exception, not systematic proof of Sharia’s superiority. Societies that moved toward secular law, equal citizenship, and market institutions have generally achieved broader-based gains in literacy, health, female labor participation, and technological capacity.

Americanism’s record—lifting people of every origin through individual rights and markets—stands in contrast to systems that subordinate those rights to religious hierarchy.

Islamism’s ultimate vision is a society ordered by divine law that privileges believers and males, as the cited Quranic verses prescribe. It cannot deliver the equal individual dignity that Ethical Individualism requires, nor the open incentives that free-market capitalism uses to generate wealth.

Americanism does both.

It treats every person as an end, not a member of a ranked class, and aligns institutions with the realities of human nature—diverse talents, self-interest channeled productively, and the need for impartial rules. For human relations and economic viability alike, the evidence favors the system that begins with the unique individual.