I think you’ve missed my point there. It’s not a question of priorities; it’s a zero-sum worldview. In the eyes of HT, you are a Muslim. Or you are a Briton. But you cannot be both. And yes, it’s just like the BNP, where you’re either a ‘purebred’ Briton – or you’re not. And should you be ‘contaminated’ in some way, in their eyes – you’re nothing at all.

In other words, the editors are equating being muslim with being a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which isn’t too smart. And why is this a general apology to the Muslims of LSE? I understand the need to report any innacuracies in the previous week’s piece, but this seems wholly unneccessary.

‘FYI any comparison with the BNP is just lazy and tabloid.’

Great insight. Unfortunately for Mr Pankhurst, it’s a perfectly valid comparison.

Cheers for clearing that up.

I read the piece in the link to the BBC you put there, thanks – quite interesting.

There are plenty of people others don’t like in the student population. I wonder how many IDF (ex or present) attend the LSE, part of a military accused of war crimes? Or what about the Professor who has thought experiments about 50+ nuclear bombs being dropped on Arab countries, or half of Muslims are terrorists, or that Blacks are more stupid genetically than Whites?

You don’t like his membership of a group you don’t like. Join the club of malcontents.

The goal of the organization is a “restoration of the Islamic caliphate.” It does not allow for a dual identity or full integration into the West. A promotional video told Muslims to ask themselves: “are they British or are they Muslim?” No hyphenation allowed.
Other Muslim organizations, such as the anti-extremist Quillam Foundation, have condemned HT and its “destructive, confrontational message.” It is banned in Germany and Russia, and an attempt to do so was made by the National Union of Students in the 1990s. The issue with Pankhurst’s membership is not, as he assumes, that one might presuppose “a move towards terrorism.” It is in fact a disagreement with the aims and methods of Hizb ut-Tahrir itself.

In Copenhagen, a leaflet was passed out by HT members exhorting Muslims to: ”‘kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have been turned you out.’ The leaflet also said, ‘The Jews are a people of slander…a treacherous people… they fabricate lies and twist words from their right context’.”

CLARIFICATION

“The comment piece “Inequality, not Islamophobia” published in the Beaver on 2nd February 2010, written under the pseudonym “Andre Leo” contained some factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations.

After concerns were raised about the potentially inflammatory nature of the article, it was revealed that there is no verified report that Ahmed Saeed Omar Sheikh, convicted of the murder of journalist Daniel Pearl, was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The article also stated incorrectly that Bilal Abdullah admitted he was radicalized by Hizb ut-Tahrir.

It has also been pointed out to us that any comparison between Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the BNP, neo-Nazi’s or KKK may be deeply offensive to the many Muslims on campus, since their ideologies are based upon the premise of racial supremacy, whereas Islam is a religion that is open for anyone of any background to join, whether originally Jewish, Christian, Hindu or other, and does not differentiate on a racial basis.
…

We reiterate that the LSE has never received or had cause to have any concerns about Mr. Pankhurst as a student or teacher. The poisitive comments from students regarding his teaching were made in clear in a previous article in the Beaver, entitled ‘Pankhurst “was a very helpful and co-operative teacher”, on 19th January 2010.

We would also like to reiterate that Comment pieces are not the views of the Beaver, but the views of the author alone.”

FYI any comparison with the BNP is just lazy and tabloid. A bit like the first article written by “Andre Leo”.

An objective is to seek the overthrow of secular Arab governments to reinstate an Islamic Caliphate or to kill Jews on a global scale. See the press reports for why the HT was banned in Egypt and Germany respectively for these claims.

I think your disability for understanding logic is an intellectual act of public danger. I think we should democratically remove you from the LSE. Just kidding, I know you are not a student here anyways. Why do you bother to frequent our website as an outsider?

Would you object to the employment of a teacher who proposed a catholic totalitarian theocracy ruling all of Europe that allowed the Pope to impose all the horrors of the inquisition on those who deviate from his divine will, through a divinely anointed emperor? Or do you think these views are protected by freedom of speech in the academic realm? I think the common sense answer is that such views frighten and offend the ex-victims of this system of government (Jews, and Protestants) much much more than they contribute to academic discourse. So does HT.

You actual respect for HT stems from some sort of post-colonial guilt or orientalist fetish more than a balanced concern for academic freedom.

I have noting to hide. Whilst I dont agree with many things people may say (including the views of HT), the fact is that they have an opinion. The idea that we should block all debate, esp on a university campus, is ludicrous. We should challenge people intellectually not rush to ban organisations.

As for me saying he is an amazing teacher, if you read statement you will see that even his own students say he has not brought any of his beliefs into the classroom. That is how it should be.