Whether or not that is true, had the same statement been made by another public official in almost any Western country it would not have raised an eyebrow or attracted adverse comment. It would simply have seemed a rather bland statement of the obvious reality, however regrettable that reality might be. True, the syntax was clumsy and laid itself open to misinterpretation, something an experienced politician like Khan would probably have avoided had this been a prepared statement rather than an off-the-cuff in a live radio interview (as this was). But there are plenty of good reasons for suspecting Khan without the need to invent spurious ones.
I’m also sceptical of the notion that a Muslim’s religion necessarily defines his politics. British Muslims come from a wide variety of sects and cultures, many of them (not just Sunni/Shia) mutually hostile. The idea that they form some kind of unified political bloc is pretty far-fetched.
Incidentally, the constant references to Khan by US commentators, often in the most unlikely contexts, does become a little tedious. Perhaps it’s because the political significance of the London mayoralty is assumed to be greater than is the case. There are other Muslims much closer to power. Sajid Javid has a reasonable chance of becoming the next Prime Minister, but I can’t remember his name ever appearing here.
does become = do become. I’m getting too old to do without a post-edit function.