Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate

‘Non-flying imam’ might upend your stereotypes

Monday, our own Eric Black got a few thousand web hits laying out the evidence in the “flying imams” case. It was a fine, fact-based (if implicit) rebuke to former colleague Katherine Kersten’s “blame the ump” gambit in the Strib.

Kersten, who largely elided such evidence, ended her OpEx column by finding a Muslim willing to decry “victimization” and sign off on the imams’ removal and detention. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser’s American Islamic Forum for Democracy appears to be a two-person shop, at least according to its website, but if nothing else, his advocacy proves Muslims are not a monolith, if you need that reminder.

In that vein, it’s worth reading an interview with Bloomington imam Ikram-Ul-Huq in the Asian American Press, via Twin Cities Daily Planet. According to reporter Tom Laventure, Ikram took his out-of-town colleagues to the airport and prayed with them for 45 minutes before the fateful flight. 

Just another America-hating terrorist? Stow your stereotypes! According to the story, “Ikram … is also vice chair of his District 37A Republican Party Board, and chairman of his local precinct.”

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (12)

  1. Submitted by Peter Swanson on 10/27/2009 - 11:21 am.

    Where did they pray? At the gate? Wouldn’t he need a ticket to get inside the gate?

    Where does your colleague Max Sparber stand (kneel) on the whole praying-at-the-gate issue? He linked to someone who supported Goldy’s mocking of a football player who prayed before a game (linking is not necessarily endorsement, I know):

    >Semi-professional atheist P.Z. Myers takes issue >with this on his blog, saying, “I call >shenanigans. He was too trying to trivialize a >religious ritual … and we like him for it.”

  2. Submitted by Peter Swanson on 10/27/2009 - 11:32 am.

    One more thing. This Muslims-must-be-Democrats is a stereotype primarily in the minds of MinnPost columnists.

    Recall that the TIZA whistleblower had been a College Republican. Neglecting to mention this was touted by the folks at MinnPost as shoddy journalism.

    I am not sure how the logic goes on this. One possibility is that Republicans are controlled by the Christian right, and Islam competes with Christianity, so Islam and GOP are in conflict. Another possibility is that Republicans are against terror (Dems would say they are too), and Muslims are…. Wait! Are we bursting stereotypes or perpetuating them?

  3. Submitted by David Brauer on 10/27/2009 - 12:15 pm.

    Peter –

    While the sub’s more sensational allegations *have not* been proven (including by a state Ed Dept investigation), I can pretty much promise you that if a court of law, vetting the MCLU’s evidence, rules against the school, I will be more magnanimous about my claims than Kersten was in the imams case.

    Also, it’s not about “Muslims are Democrats.” It’s the right’s insinuation that certain political Muslims are traitors. Thought it was interesting to note a different sort of fellow traveler, amid Kersten’s Three-Minute Hate.

  4. Submitted by Peter Swanson on 10/27/2009 - 01:12 pm.

    I applaud your willingness (prospectively) to admit that you were wrong. But you were wrong to do so (magnanimously admit error) when the ACLU-MN jumped in, just as you would be wrong to so if a judge ultimately ruled against TIZA. Stick to your guns! Ad hoc, not ad hominem.

    Kersten can get things wrong, as can the ACLU, as can some judges. Pick your favorite outrageous LA verdict from the 90s as proof that juries can get things wrong.

    Now if there are new facts, of course we all should re-evaluate our conclusions. And we should explore possible bias in fact witnesses. But the GOP affiliation of the Education Commissioner is not exactly a Sister Souljah moment in the TIZA case. It’s pretty attenuated. Ditto for the GOP imam and the C-GOP sub.

  5. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 10/27/2009 - 01:43 pm.

    Exhibit “A”: A story about a failed bank that advertised it’s reliance on Christian values to guide its business decisions.

    Minnpost declares the failure “too delicious” to ignore and to the obvious glee of author, hoists a picture of Christ which some (including this reader) would find objectionable that was displayed in one of the bank’s offices up for mockery.

    Slavering leftist commentators provide the laugh track.

    Exhibit “B”: A story of a group of Muslim clerics that were tossed off a plane after a public display of religious fervor and conversations that some passengers found troubling, others threatening.

    MinnPost advises “Stow your stereotypes!” [Exclamation original].

    The reasoned, thoughtful reader reels at the hypocrisy.

  6. Submitted by David Brauer on 10/27/2009 - 02:52 pm.

    Tom – a bank that marketed Jesus (you know, guy who threw moneychangers out of the temple) as “taking care of the bottom line” *actually* fails.

    Muslim clerics who victimized nobody detained for *not actually* doing anything wrong.

    The former can fairly be said to have elements of charlatanism; the latter, according to a court and available evidence, not so much. That’s the diff.

    Peter – as for this specific item, I don’t deny the attenuation. It’s a moment, not a thunderclap.

  7. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 10/27/2009 - 06:07 pm.

    The quote you’re twisting actually went “He said, ‘Chuck, if you do all the things I told you to do, I promise you I will take care of the bottom line.'”

    I don’t expect a member of the scary smart, reality based community to understand the difference between that sentence and what you’ve been posting, any more than I expect one to know the difference between Middle Eastern clothing and a bathrobe…but other readers might be interested in giving understanding a try, and I think a guy that purports to be a “journalist” owes it to his readers to at least give them a shot at it by posting accurate quotes.

  8. Submitted by David Brauer on 10/27/2009 - 07:54 pm.

    Tom, always better to be scary smart than scary scary, if you know what I mean.

    However, if alleging a misquote, best to get the quote right:”Chuck Ripka, one of the bank’s founders, once told the Star Tribune that God spoke to him and said, ‘Chuck, if you pastor the bank, I’ll take care of the bottom line.'”

    http://www.startribune.com/local/west/65874567.html

    God needs new accountants, I guess. Hard to see the fundamental misquote here, by the way.

  9. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 10/28/2009 - 11:06 am.

    Direct quote, Dave.

    “Ripka said. ”He told me: ‘Chuck, if you do all the things I want you to do, I promise I’ll take care of the bottom line.”

    New York Times, Dave.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/magazine/31FAITH.html?pagewanted=5&_r=2

    As I’ve said, I don’t expect you to have the where-with-all to discern the difference between the first person quote from the NYT and your seat of the pants, free form mischaracterization, but I would expect a supposed “journalist” to know the difference between a direct quote and “once said”.

    Even MiniSoros Indy managed to get it right…ouch!

    “Chuck, if you do all the things I told you to do, I promise you I will take care of the bottom line”

    http://minnesotaindependent.com/35983/kiffmeyers-bank-cited-for-unsafe-banking-practices.

  10. Submitted by David Brauer on 10/28/2009 - 11:12 am.

    Tom –

    The quote and source I provided is from the Strib, and it’s a direct quote. You initially accused me of twisting a quote, but you didn’t pick the right one. You may not have realized Ripka can talk to multiple people.

    Fun climbing down the rabbit hole with you, but time to head back to the light …

  11. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 10/28/2009 - 12:00 pm.

    “once said” is a direct quote?

    “once”, when? “said”, to whom?

    Where is the article in which it was “once said”?

    Do you know what “first person singular” means, Dave? And perhaps, more importantly, can you find “journalist” in the dictionary?

  12. Submitted by Virginia Martin on 10/29/2009 - 11:23 am.

    Tom Swift (or whatever your real name is), if you took out your name calling and attacking the person for his/her idiocy/stupidity/whatever for disagreeing with you, you would have nothing left to say.

Leave a Reply