Ah, that’s just wonderful:

Remarks on apostasy and capital punishment under Islamic law by Harvard’s Muslim chaplain have become the center of a heated debate about whether Islamic and Western values can be compatible.

In an e-mail to an unnamed student, the chaplain, Taha Abdul-Basser, stated that most traditional authorities on Islamic law agree that in countries under Muslim governance, the proper punishment for apostasy — that is, rejection of Islam by a former Muslim — is death. The e-mail was subsequently published online, and although Abdul-Basser has distanced himself personally from that position, the remarks have stirred a flurry of controversy and debate.

Now, it’s one thing to point out that ‘this is how countries ruled by Islamists deal with apostasy’ (noting a fact in other words) but it is absolutely unacceptable if you give the impression that the death penalty (for someone exercising his natural and human right to believe [or not believe] as he sees fit or as he believes true) is quite alright. And that is exactly what Abdul-Basser did:

In his original e-mail, Abdul-Basser appeared to put himself at odds with the international human rights community, which includes a number of luminaries who teach at Harvard. After a lengthy discussion of the positions of various Muslim autorities, he concluded by writing that “there is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment), and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.”

It is a disgrace that this man works at Harvard. The university’s Muslim students count on him for spiritual guidance. He has authority and influence. He will poison the hearts and minds of young Muslims with questions about their faith and the place it should take in society.

He later tried to undo the damage by sending Forward an email:

In a subsequent statement sent to the Forward, however, Abdul-Basser said that he was simply explaining to a student the traditional position of Islamic legal scholars, not advocating their viewpoint.

“I have never expressed the position that individuals who leave Islam or convert from Islam to another religion must be killed. I do not hold this opinion personally,” Abdul-Basser wrote, adding that the “wisdom” he referred to simply described the skill of the scholars who have historically debated the laws on apostasy.

“I was not advocating any of the positions summarized in my e-mail, merely addressing them in the context of the evolution of an Islamic legal doctrine,” he added.

Not only should this man be forced to find employment somewhere else, the FBI is wise to keep a close eye on him and on those who have listened carefully to him for months, even years.

Muslim blogger Aziz Poonawalla took issue with Abdul-Basser’s contrast between Islamic law and human rights at Beliefnet:

“The phrase, ‘hegemonic human rights discourse’ is deeply troubling because it implicitly rejects the basic notion of universal human rights,” Poonawalla wrote. “Freedom of faith and conscience is a key human right that has solid precedent and grounding in Islamic sources as well as Western roots. I reject the notion that human rights are ‘values’ which may be fluid between human societies. It’s precisely this attitude that has permitted modern Islamic states to drift so far from the established jurisprudence.”

Daniel Pipes too criticized the ‘death-for-aspostasy’ chaplain:

“This case is typical of many others; Muslim leaders, portrayed as moderate and occupying prestigious and responsible positions, turn out, in fact, to be Islamists,” said Daniel Pipes, who founded Campus Watch, an organization dedicated to rooting out and criticizing university professors and student groups that it considers to be excessively Islamist or antisemitic. “Only when institutions like Harvard engage in proper due diligence to exclude Islamists can we begin to fight the enemy within.”

It all reminds me of Tariq Ramadan, who teaches at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam. When speaking before Western audiences, Ramadan strikes us Westerners as incredibly modern, tolerant and open minded. Spiritual, even.

Recently he showed his true face while speaking before a very conservative audience (consisting mostly out of immigrants): he said – or implied – that he not only opposed gay marriage, but that homosexuality should even be outlawed.

These individuals are highly problematic: they present themselves as spokesmen for a modern, enlightened Islam, but show they are stuck in the Dark Ages when speaking behind closed doors.