In an account that reads more like a CAIR press release than a news report, the Washington Post tells us:
As expression of anti-Muslim sentiment has risen across the United States in recent weeks, Muslim leaders say they are stepping up efforts to unify their communities and push for greater public and political engagement.
Has it risen? Apparently the Post considers expressions of anti-Muslim sentiment to include statements objecting to the Ground Zero mosque. It is now, I suppose, accepted “fact” that Ground Zero opposition is an outburst of Islamophobia. Harry Reid and Howard Dean must be ashamed.
But the spin does not end there. The report continues:
Several groups, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), ICNA and MPAC, are working on forming a National Muslim Leadership Alliance, Baig said.
“What’s pushing us now to jointly work together, to come up with some strategy, is it is not affecting just one Muslim organization, it is affecting Muslims,” he said. “There’s a real serious threat of violence against individuals.”
Any mention that some of these groups have ties to terrorist groups or have had officials convicted of terrorist activities? Any hint that these groups have been loath to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah or to condemn accusations that the U.S. was responsible for 9/11? No. Maybe the Post is concerned that would be an example of anti-Muslim sentiment.
Some of the account is downright misleading. Take this:
The interfaith event was among a surge of responses to hostility sparked by a proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero in Manhattan. Protesters have targeted mosques under construction elsewhere in the country; a Florida church announced that it will burn Korans on Sept. 11; and a Muslim taxi driver was stabbed in New York.
As to the church, the report omits two salient facts. City officials denied it a permit. And “Evangelical and Jewish groups are calling plans by a Gainesville, Fla., church to burn the Islamic holy book on 9/11 both destructive and ‘morally repugnant.'” That the Koran-burning is the brainchild of one whacked-out pastor and was swiftly and widely repudiated are facts that appear nowhere in the account. On the cabbie story, certainly the Post has heard:
For one thing, the alleged attacker, Michael Enright, worked with an organization that very much favors the project. For another, the cabby, Ahmed Sharif, says he’s opposed to it — though Sharif does say that he’s worried that debate over the planned project might have played a role in the attack.
It is unclear whether the report is the result of excessive political correctness or downright sloppiness. But when the errors all go one way (boost the CAIR propaganda line), then there is reason to believe it is the former.