Arguably, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has claimed his first victim. In the last week, thanks to an anonymous tip-off, the nation’s media has been alerted to the existence of a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir within the School’s faculty. Reza Pankhurst, a teacher of the States, Nations and Empires course who is held in high regard by many of his students, is alleged to have abused his position as an occasional preacher at Friday prayers to deliver extremist views that have caused concern amongst some members of the LSESU Islamic Society. When complaints were made to the Students’ Union, it appears that the results were inconclusive. In the wake of widespread media coverage that has been at best factually incorrect and at worst grossly misrepresentative, there are lingering worries over a potential backlash against portions of the student body.
It is clearly not permissible to suggest that Pankhurst’s membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir has impeded upon his academic responsibilities – the overwhelming reaction from his students has been to defend his qualities as a teacher, and to confirm that he has never brought any personal political views into the classroom. Crucially however, Pankhurst is not only a teacher in the Government department of the School, but also a visible figure within a society of the Students’ Union, thus it is not adequate to assess his actions purely in the academic sphere.
What we know of his role within Friday prayers is coloured by a series of differing and sometimes contradictory statements released by the Islamic Society and the Students’ Union. Nonetheless, it is not inaccurate to suggest that a lack of communication between the relevant parties is partly to blame for the subsequent events. Pankhurst was never asked by the Islamic Society as to whether he belonged to Hizb ut-Tahrir, and nor should he have been, because the organisation is neither illegal nor subject to the no-platform policy of the NUS. Furthermore, most members of the society did not believe he held any extremist views and had no reason to question him on his affiliation with the group.
However, when complaints filtered through to the Sabbatical Officers from students attending Friday prayers, concerned about the content of Pankhurst’s sermons, evidence suggests that full knowledge of the situation was not shared with the Islamic Society, as he never made his membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir explicit. In any situation involving the propagation of a potentially controversial ideology, the complaint of even a single affected individual must be taken seriously. As part of this process, a dialogue between all concerned should be the default position. According to our coverage of these incidents, it would appear that this dialogue was not forthcoming, hence why Pankhurst’s appearances at Friday prayers did not cease, and were not scrutinized to any great degree, and why these allegations fermented on campus until an anonymous, disaffected society member chose to reveal all to a journalist at the Times.
The no-longer broadsheet’s coverage of the story has been deeply troubling. One article made fatuous claims of secret meetings of a Brothers’ Circle; another incorrectly quoted NUS policy. With such a wide readership as it has, we can only hope that misinformed readers do not adopt a similarly incorrect view of the Islamic Society, which does a great deal to improve campus relations between students of different faiths, and took on Pankhurst as a guest preacher in good faith. It is thus crucial at this time for rationality and measured judgement, and efforts on the part of our Students’ Union to protect those most at risk from backlash and illogical attacks.
Related posts:
- LSE teacher accused of holding “extremist” views
- Islam or liberalism?, School debate to ask
- Politicising religion
Pingback: The London School of Embarrassment « Automatic Ballpoint