The 2/3 figure kind of surprised me - I thought the long-standing Muslim communities were a bit bigger than that.

Like you said, a lot of common-sense stuff in the recommendations, capacity building, institution building, outreach, et cetera, but nothing that really jumped out at me. Most interesting concrete recommendation was for forming some sort of nonprofit devoted solely to educating Americans about Islam, which could have its uses. I couldn't help thinking, though, that given America's current political setup, that any such organization no matter how nonpartisan it was set up to be would nonetheless in practice be on the left.

Interesting that the word "Israel" appears I think four times in the entire document.

A fascinating report - but unfortunately, given the general level and tenor of "mainstream" American media coverage of Muslim/non-Muslim relations (whether in the US or abroad), and the (general) concentration of immigrant-Muslim populations in a few urban areas are, I think, going to make it an uphill climb for any new or existing group to "improve" images or relations between Muslim-Americans and the rest of the populace.

A major flaw I perceived in the report also: while they do make mention of the fact that Muslim-immigrants-to-America are a quite diverse lot, they tend to fall into the (inevitable if inaccurate) shorthand of using "Muslim-American" as a catch-all descriptive for the whole range of immigrants. Of course, even those who aren't regular readers of 'Aqoul might* know that Algerians are different from Egyptians are different from Pakistanis are different from Indonesians, etc., etc.: but the GCGA report seems unfortunately rather indistinct in its differentiation between "ethnicity", "nationality" and "religion" - which differences, IMHO, are going to vital in improving "Muslim-American" relations.

*"might", but sadly, probably don't.

"Most interesting concrete recommendation was for forming some sort of nonprofit devoted solely to educating Americans about Islam, which could have its uses."

A Rule: EVERYTHING is partly or totally a job-pitch. Can anyone think of a report of a social phenomenon which ends with "we need to spend less money on what we are studying here"? Even libertarians say "this needs less money spent on it, and if you hire us or donate to us, we'll prepare more reports and action stopping that overspending."

"Interesting that the word 'Israel' appears I think four times in the entire document."

That's because it's Palestine, dummy. How dare you! :-)

Well, the word "Palestine" appears precisely zero times, so it ain't that.

More seriously, now, as I've actually glanced at it, the inclusion of the National Association of Arab Americans in the list of organizations shows that the basic ethnic/religious distinction still eludes.

Meanwhile, MENA ethnic distinction comprehension failure (not in this report but elsewhere) is ludicrous over here. I recall reading the annual report of a rights-advocacy group in the USA -- I wont name it, but its first letters are A C and L -- which spoke glowingly of their intense involvement in successfully remediating the discrimination against an Iranian-born couple in public employment.

The caption at the beginning of that story was "Fighting Anti-Arab Discrimination".

Now mix in a multifaceted religion into the picture.

Of course, it is appropriate to blame the victim. It is not hard to point this out, but the communities most affected don't.

I mean it is not hard to point the distinctions out but the affected communities don't.

the inclusion of the National Association of Arab Americans in the list of organizations shows that the basic ethnic/religious distinction still eludes.

Oh come on, that's not entirely fair - all sorts of orgs are included, and there is a certain amount of overlap between Arabs annd Muslims, especially in the area where the org is located.

And in fact the National Assn of Arab Americans is included after a subhead saying "The following organizations serve various ethnic and national groups, Muslim and non-Muslim", along with 3 other Arab American groups, one Pakistani-American group, and a South Asian American group.

"And in fact the National Assn of Arab Americans is included after a subhead saying "The following organizations serve various ethnic and national groups, Muslim and non-Muslim", along with 3 other Arab American groups, one Pakistani-American group, and a South Asian American group."

That'll teach me not to read everything.

Still, I wish they'd include that disclaimer obnoxiously all over the place, as it can't be overstressed, and if interested types like me will read superficially, imagine the rest of the audience.

"And in fact the National Assn of Arab Americans is included after a subhead saying "The following organizations serve various ethnic and national groups, Muslim and non-Muslim", along with 3 other Arab American groups, one Pakistani-American group, and a South Asian American group."

I don't know about that. A large chunk of American Muslims are native-born African-Americans: does that mean that NAACP should be included among organizations serving "various ethnic and national groups, Muslim and non-Muslim," like the Arab-American organizations? It stick strikes me as a manifestation of the stereotype Muslim = Arab.

Well, the segment in question is an appendix listing & briefly discussing the major groups already representing American Muslims. I agree with Matthew that they could have set the section on "ethnic" groups off more distinctly; but to not include those groups at all would have given an incomplete picture.

A large chunk of American Muslims are native-born African-Americans

On the other hand, what proportion of native-born African-Americans are Muslims?

"On the other hand, what proportion of native-born African-Americans are Muslims? "

OK, that may be so...but at the same time, the number that I'd heard for a long time was that a majority of Arab-Americans have always been Xians (although things may be different now). So, the same logic applies there also.

I think the more important distinction between the Arab American organizations on the one hand and the NAACP on the other is that a significant part of the Arab American organizations' advocacy & education efforts have been on Islam, the nature of Islam, Muslims in America, et cetera. This could be a blind spot on my part, but I don't think the NAACP has had that kind of focus. And thus any survey of organizations working on Muslim issues needs to include the big Arab American organizations, but not necessarily the NAACP.

I think it's fair to note more directly things like National Association of Arab Americans as there is more overlap in issue focus than, say, NAACP.

Still, looking back over the document, I see my complaint was justified as ethnic non-religious outfits like Nat Assoc Arab Americans (traditionally predominantly Xian in religious makeup of leadership) and such are barely distinguished in the huge appendix chapter with a big caption like "Muslim Organizations".