Why is it that nothing in the article talks about the actual reason the woman was speaking, and the reason for the protesters?
I suggest you reread the article. It quite clearly states the reason for her speaking, and the context in which this meeting was called:
And that’s why Mohyuddin became a Muslim activist, and more than 20 years later, **found herself at a 2013 community meeting in Manchester, facing down anti-Muslim activists.
It happened just after a Coffee County commissioner posted a Facebook cartoon of a man with one eye looking down the sights of a shotgun, with the caption, “How to wink at a Muslim.”
The U.S. attorney for the area called the meeting to talk about hate speech and to try to better relations between Muslims and Christians.**
Instead, anti-Muslim protesters from outside the area showed up and turned the meeting combative.
“It was a circus,” Mohyuddin said.
She was particularly on edge because the man who has run the Islamic Center of Columbia, Daoud Abudiab, was in the audience.
When Mohyuddin declared the mosque had been set on fire and the people cheered? She snapped.
"They’re cheering and he’s right there. That’s why I said, ‘Shame on you.’ Do they understand there are real people involved here?
“Sometimes people need to be told things to their face.”
It seems premature for the article to be siding with the Muslim activist and covering her side of story without actually talking about what the crowd’s reasons were for protesting.
I disagree. These hecklers came for no other reason than to arouse trouble. They were cheering for arson. Their motives are quite clear to any reasonable person.
