LOL! Sounds like a re-vamped social security promise and just as empty.
I have pointed out in various forums that Islam was constructed in deliberate opposition to Christianity just at the point when the Church was working out (as a result of the Christological controversies which only us Eastern Orthodox really seem to understand anymore) the modern notion of person. The conception of person which all of Christendom, including its secularist post-Enlightenment Western decay, accepts, and on which modern democracy (as opposed to the Athenian all land-owning men are created equal version) depends is explicitly rejected by Islam.
The Islamic dicta "Allah has no image" and "Allah has no son" set Islam in direct opposition to the "high anthropology" of Christendom, which sees each human being as created in God's image, and worthy of God sending His Son on a rescue mission in which He passed through death to destroy death. Islam is thus also in direct opposition to the diminished version of Christian anthropology (I use the word in the theological sense) held by the American Founders, "All men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..."
Plainly Christianity is not necessary to a functioning modern democracy: Hindu India, and (once humbled by American military might) Shinto/Buddhist Japan do very well. However, Hinduism, Shinto and Buddhism are merely non-Christian religions, not, like Islam anti-Christian religions.
On the other hand, the author argues that Islam "negates free-will" because it has a strict moral code. This is a silly position. He might also note that although Islam lowered the status of women in the Christian lands it conquered, it did (despite having a rapist for a "prophet") represent an improvement in the status of women over what was found among the heathen Arabs which it initially attracted. (Let us be just in our criticism of our enemies.)
We do legislate personal morality, as drug laws, civil rights laws, and the Sunday closing laws, dry counties, age of consent statutes, anti-smoking regulations, and sodomy laws found in some jurisdictions indicate. To be sure, we try to have reasons that are more easily defended against libertarian arguments, but our parents and grandparents weren't so scrupulous about evading libertarian censure. A recognition that legislated morality is part of our heritage too would have made for a more balanced article. Our ancestors had more in common with Muslims than we would like to think, and we ourselves confronted with some new abomination would be likely to ban it first and ask questions later.
Islam isn't a religion. It is much more. It is a diabolical socio/political/religious philosophy bent upon world domination or destruction. They are the ones that originated the saying "Either you are with us or against us!". Quite frankly I don't understand all the debate.
My solution is brutal but eventually will have to be considered or we as a Non-Islamic people will cease to exist. Fundamental Islam must be destroyed and all who profess to follow it along with it. PERIOD! And it has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It has to do with survival of the fittest.