Neither of those 2 complaints were of any substance.

Please see the Student Union’s own comment on Reza which states very clearly:

“We stand with students and staff united in opposition to Islamophobia and racism on campus. We reject the scapegoating of all Muslim students and are united in opposition to the victimisation of our colleagues. We support the statement that the LSE have released about Reza making clear “no concerns about his conduct have been raised with the school” and which mentions clearly that he is not known to be a member of a proscribed group nor to have said anything unlawful which would breach LSE regulations.”

http://lse.oncampus.net/pages/representation/statement_on_mr_reza_pankhurst_.html

That covers everything about his conduct at school, sermons or otherwise.

You may not like his political views, but he has every right to express them, just as you have the right to disagree.

If he was simply using his classes as an opportunity to preach his radical interpretation of Islam, I am sure LSE students, being some of the most intelligent in the country, would have objected. I am aware that members of the audience present at his sermon, including myself complained about Mr. Pankhurst either formally or informally, indicating that while his teaching might be welcome at LSE, his inflammatory views on Islam are not.

Finally, an articulate, rational view. While I would say that the “current hostility towards Islam” has been sparked by instances of radicalization such as these, you do raise an interesting dilemma in separating what are essentially extracurricular views from the actual teaching.

My only question would be (and having no first-hand experience myself): regardless of how well-liked he is among students, are these religious views being brought into the classroom?

Of course, there’s another issue. Would we allow a BNP member to teach if his views had no perceivable impact on the classroom?

However, this man should not be given a platform by the Islamic society. I have heard him speak and his sermons are aggressive if not extremist. With the current hostility towards Islam, it is of utmost importance that Islam and its values of peace are interpreted accurately. This man proposes an interpretation of Islam which is misguided, dangerous and contrary to that of the majority of rational Muslims .

VICTORY TO FREE OF SPEECH!!

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me or do you not know anything about the subject of the article? The teacher favors a Caliphate (dictatorship) where the law draws authority from a book as interpreted by a religious elite (from several dictators) not from the democratic consent of the people. This is form of totalitarianism that is euphemistically referred to as an “lslamic State” by Pankhurst. This is not my definition, it is his. Obviously, the point of my first comment was to challenge Muslims to challenge this man’s version of Islam. You’ve understood my position backwards. I leave it to Muslims to define what Islamic values are, I don’t have pretensions to do it for them

If you define an Islamic state as “totalitarian” then you clearly do believe that totalitarianism is an Islamic value. What is at fault is your ridiculous definition, rather than the belief itself.

I didn’t know totalitarianism was an Islamic value. Is it?