If people want to object to a particular group or some of its members that's one thing; the documented history of at least two of the charity speakers makes that understandable (whether or not it's entirely justified is open to debate). If the group sponsoring the event has been as credibly linked to terrorist groups as Isaac says, it's QUITE understandable; there's also a well documented history of people thinking that donating money to terrorist groups somehow satisfies the charitable Pillar of Islam (e.g. several senior members of the Saudi royal family/government, in particular the kings uncle/defense minister, donating money to Al Qaeda and calling it Zakat). Without getting into whether I support such allegations against anyone involved with the charity event (frankly, I don't know enough about any of them to take a position) I can see why people might make them and protest the event as a result.

It's a long way from there to saying all of Islam is "pure unadulterated evil" though, and that kind of statement from a high ranking member of the city government is rather disturbing. I think most people would be troubled (to say the least) if a member of their local city council felt their particular religion was "pure unadulterated evil", let alone if they made a public appearance just to say so. Whether they did so during the fundraising event or hours later is largely irrelevant; operating cloaked by night (among other things... ) doesn't legitimize the Klan and it doesn't legitimize this. I have my own issues with Islam (to say the least) but dismissing every Muslim as a terrorist servant of evil is absurd and shameful. We should demand better of our elected leaders, and it bodes ill for the nation if we do not.