“The implementation of X as a completerncode of life cannot be limited tornthe home and to personal relationships.rnIt is to be sought and achieved in societyrnas a whole.” Now if we replaced “X”rnwith “Christianity” or “communism” orrn”homosexuality,” for that matter, andrnlarge numbers of Christians, communists,rnor homosexuals presented themselvesrnfor entry into this country, wernshould do well to pause for a momentrnbefore issuing visas. People who wish torncome here to impose on the rest of therncountry Christianity, communism, orrnthe homosexual way of life (to choosernexamples sure to outrage someone orrnother) as a class of persons do givernpause.rnThat statement was made by a BritishrnMuslim and preached at the mosquernin Bradford, England, as reported inrnthe March 1992 Salisbury Review byrnMervyn Hiskett of the School of Orientalrnand African Studies at the Universityrnof London. An imam in France said,rn”There can be no government contraryrnto what God has revealed in the Koran.”rnIt is the duty, so it is maintained byrnsome, of every Muslim “to overthrowrnevery power which governs in contraventionrnof that which God enjoins andrnto bring about the erection of the Islamicrnstate.”rnNor are these statements expressionsrnof the happy hour, of closeted religiousrnintellectuals making up their httlernworlds and writing down the results. ArnMuslim parliament in Britain was announcedrnon May 9, 1991. British Muslimrnauthorities explicitly stated, “Islam isrn. . . a charter for Muslim political life;rnit could not properly be reduced tornmerely an item of personal piety in thernprivate sector.” But in the United Statesrnreligion is kept apart from politics byrnthe First Amendment, which prohibitsrnthe government from favoring or opposingrnany religion, or religion generally.rnThe authority quoted by Hiskett complains,rn”Islamic principles and valuesrnhave always been systematically excludedrnfrom exercising any influence on thernpolitics of the British government.”rnI do not think a Roman Catholic cardinal.rnEvangelist preacher, or Hasidicrnrcbbe would win a friendly hearingrnamong Catholic, Protestant, or JewishrnAmericans for his complaint thatrn”Catholic/Protestant/Judaic values havernalways been systematically excludedrnfrom exercising any influence on thernpolitics of the American government.”rnPart of the American system requires allrndistinct groups to accomplish their goalsrnby focusing upon the public interest. Arnpolitics of sectarian preferment is unconstitutional.rnAnd, I hasten to add, inrnthe American system it is also unnecessary.rnThrough negotiation people generallyrnget, out of what they want, whatrnthey should have. Our system requiresrnconsensus.rnWhat, then, will this country makernof a large immigrant group, forming arnsizable proportion of the population asrnin Britain, France, and Germany, thatrndeclares, “The Muslim community cannotrncommit itself to follow all ‘currentrnlaws’ however anti-religious these lawsrnmay become through democraticrnmeans”? The British Muslims object,rnHiskett reports, to state neutrality towardrnIslam, to pluralist systems, torndemocratic decision-making that yieldsrnconflict with revelation, and to the relegationrnof Islam to a personal belief systemrnwithout political and social institutions.rnThe upshot is simple. Islamrnamong the new Britons is not a Protestantrnand Westernized religion, in thernway Catholic and Orthodox Christianityrnand Judaism are Protestant and Westernizedrnin America. Its leaders identifyrncorrectly the conditions under which,rnin the West, religion thrives in countriesrnthat sustain pluralism: rigid adherencernto the rules of pluralism, which are notrnnegotiable.rnIt is one thing to recognize Islam asrnone of the religions of democracy whenrnIslam affirms the rules of democracy; itrnis another to contemplate admission ofrnlarge numbers of persons who reject democracyrnand espouse an alternative theologicalrnpolitics. We can make an Americanrnof anybody who wants to becomernan American, without distinction ofrnrace, religion, creed, previous conditionrnof servitude, or any of the other distinctionsrnwe are not supposed to make. Butrnif applicants for green cards inform consularrnofficers from the very start thatrnthey reject the American Constitutionrnand Bill of Rights, then they should notrnreceive visas. The American system notrnonly works for all for whom it is meantrnto work, it also does not work for all forrnwhom it can never work.rnFrench Jews became French citizensrnon terms that required giving up anyrnchimera of forming a separate nation orrnestate within France: to the Jews as individuals,rneverything; to the Jews as arnnation, nothing. That contract (alas.rnunilaterally abrogated by anti-Semitismrnin the 19th century and the holocaust inrnthe 20th) defined the conditions for allrnwho would join the commonwealth andrntake up the common tasks of citizenshiprnand responsibility. So far as BritishrnMuslims contemplate being governed,rnin the age-old manner of the MiddlernEast, by their own law (as Anglicansrnwould be governed by theirs, andrnCatholics by theirs, and Methodists byrntheirs, if they could make up one), theyrncontemplate a system other than thernterritorial one that has worked in thatrncountry, and that works here. Muslims,rnHiskett says, will then be subject to thernwrit of their own parliament, “largelyrnautonomous of non-Islamic governingrninstitutions and isolated from the surroundingrnmainstream culture—in otherrnwords independent theocratic Islamicrnenclaves within the wider British state.”rnIf that is what immigrants contemplatern—whether for Islam or Christianityrnor Judaism or the celebration of Satan,rnfor that matter—then they shouldrnbe excluded. Watching German TV lastrnsummer, I remember seeing a Germanrnof Turkish origin saying to a reporter inrnwhat to my ears was perfect, unaccentedrnGerman: “But we do not want to becomernEuropeans. We do not value Europe,rnand we do not like Europe.” Thernreporter was rude enough to ask, “Sornwhat are you doing here in Europe?”rnThis seems a fair question.rn—Jacob NeusnerrnI N THE STATES and in the soulsrnwhere Confederate flags still fly, theyrnfluttered at half-mast last March forrnM.E. Bradford, gentleman, scholar, politicalrnthinker, and Good Old Rebel,rnwho departed this world too soon at thernage of 58. Yet the legacy he left to anrnAmerica now being reconstructed to suitrnpolitical correctness and political expediencyrnis one that not only his Southernrnfriends, students, colleagues, and admirersrnshould receive. The two countriesrnhe loved so much—^America andrnthe South—need to take their stand onrnthe ground he unflinchingly defended.rnTrained as a Faulkner scholar at Vanderbilt.rnDr. Bradford wound up bestrnknown for his political thought andrnthe political action to which his thoughtrnled. At the center of that thoughtrnwas the American South, whose nativernand faithful son Mel was, though hisrnthought was not limited to it and thernJUNE 1993/5rnrnrn