Last week the Observer printed a report on the murder of an American newspaper editor, Chauncey Bailey, by Black militants supposedly linked to "Your Black Muslim Bakery", dominated by a psuedo-Islamic sect that Bailey was investigating. The Observer referred to the sect's members as "Islamists". Since the term is often used to describe supporters of political Islam, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, it is inaccurate to describe Black Nationalist sects which use Islamic language, and this matters, because if it were, it would make this an example of "Islamist" terrorism. So I wrote them this letter:
Your report on the murder of Chauncey Bailey in San Francisco wrongly refers to the suspected killers as "Islamists". In the sense that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are Islamists, this particular group are not; they are followers of a home-grown religion, using some Islamic language, which preaches Black nationalism. A number of such groups exist in several American cities. Islam itself is for all mankind and does not support Black, Arab or any other type of nationalism.
(If you choose not to print this letter, I ask that a message to its effect be included in the corrections column next Sunday.)
However, in today's Observer, neither this letter nor any correction appears. (More: Umar Lee.)
Salaam 'Alaikum
It is worth noting that Chauncey Bailey's (the journalist who was murdered) brother in law, who is a da'iyee and active member of an Oakland masjid, has told the papers repeatedly that YBMB has nothing to do with Islam. But will people listen?
By defining this group as Islamist, The Observer has become bedfellows with Western Resistance, a blog which makes Daniel Pipes look like a jolly nice fellow.