*Media and Muslims

Article:
 Muslim Woman Bridges Faiths to Advance Progressive Goals

"She had always taken her mottos from Frederick Douglas ("Power concedes nothing without a demand"), Howard Zinn ("Small acts when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world") and a hadith attributed to the Prophet Muhammad ("Whosoever of you sees an evil action, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart")

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/us/faiza-ali-uses-faith-to-unite-religious-coalitions.html

First and foremost, credit must be given to this woman, Ms. Ali, in her efforts to build interfaith community based actions and initiatives. Kudos to her and her courage.

However, putting such a story out in the New York Times makes one wonder about the motives behind the story and why this particular one was told out of the many interfaith based initiatives. Would this story have been told if it was a Christian or Jewish woman working with an Islam based organization? Or a Hindu man working with a Christian organization? The fact that a Muslim woman is working with a Jewish organization, "trained by a Jewish Agency to work with a coalition largely composed of Christian churches," speaks volumes for a certain desirability and image for political correctness. One wonders what other faiths are involved within this community? Are there Jewish and Muslims within this community? Buddhists or Hindus? And perhaps, this is simply the nature of American communities where Christian churches dominate the neighborhoods. Nonetheless, it makes one curious.

The article briefly mentions that she is organizing with members of Christian faiths to "rally in support of proposed legislation encouraging more local investment by banks." Otherwise the article focuses on her faith, the hardships and discriminations she's faced after 9-11. There is little mention of the work that she is doing as a selected person to do work after being trained by Jewish agencies. The story itself is a political correctness piece. How sensitive and correct America is now. But these things weren't necessary prior to 9-11. Islam was just another religion and Muslims of all countries were people of a different culture. It did not matter. Even before, when there was turmoil in the Middle East during Bush Sr.'s presidency one's religion or cultural background did not matter much. Or at least it didn't seem to matter much. After 9-11 a lot has changed. Discrimination and anti-Muslim violence was very much apparent and all up in the news. What once were ordinary citizens no different from anybody else in the country suddenly became suspect. And now, we see these interfaith cooperation schemas that are politically correct. One wonders if an anti-group sentiment and discrimination/violence, then a reactive sensitivity towards that group is what creates such cooperation. At the same time, who says the cooperation wasn't there prior to any anti-group sentiment?

What makes this piece interesting is what is not told and the timing of the piece. Who told this reporter to do this story? Was it his initiative? Did he go out and find this woman and say 'Wow, look at what you're doing! This deserves press!' Or did somebody from his religious background motivate the story? Or was it the director of the 'Religion' section at the New York Times? And if it was, who told him about the story? The piece also comes at a relative time, somewhat removed so it won't be too obvious, of controversy regarding the U.S. soldiers urinating on the dead in Afghanistan and other questionable actions during war which begs, and should beg continue to beg, the question of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. So giving this kind of story media coverage and initiating such actions to do this story raises some eyebrows of whether it was done in romantic earnest or really as one stepping block for damage control, PR, and political correctness.