Hair vs Inzamam is a Christian vs Muslim fight??

Thanks to Atanu of Deeshaa.org about the hat tip.

Here is an article where the author reproduces the comment from Pakistan’s Manager. While there is little doubt that Hair has had decisions and behavior that does show his racist leanings, but this remark from Shahriyar is about as stupid as it could possibly get!!

Pakistan Cricket Board is now looking towards the BCCI (Indian Cricket Board) for help.. but I think BCCI folks remember too well the incident of Sachin Tendulkar, the giant of modern cricket, being hauled up for ball tampering. He is one guy who would never indulge in such a thing.. but he was called up for that and India was furious.. of course, we never walked out of the match or made it as HIndu vs Christian fight.. but its doubtful that BCCI will forget that in a hurry…. lets see how this drama unfolds.. the signs are not so good!

Shahriyar Khan, the chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, appears most confused. “What a wonderful sight it is to see cricket between Pakistan, a Muslim country, and England, where the majority are Christian. Why destroy this over a technicality?” he asked. With respect, Shahriyar does not know his technicalities from his elbow. The rules of cricket are not a technicality; Muslims and Christians, in this context, are. The most stupid, the most catastrophically misguided aspect of this debate is the one that insists on bringing the world of religious politics into a row about cheating in a cricket match.

Hair, we are told, has added to the volatile relationship between East and West. So, presumably, the next time London or Bali goes up, we can attach his decision to the list of liberal hand-wringing explanations for the atrocity. “Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon — and that Aussie bloke who called Pakistan for ball-tampering at the Oval. Well, what did we expect?” It is shocking the way a decision made purely in a sporting arena has been so self-servingly transferred to the political.

“All the Muslim players are sensitive individuals who are very opposed to terrorist activities,” Bob Woolmer, the Pakistan coach, said. “To accuse Pakistan of cheating brings these tensions to the fore. I wonder whether Darrell realises the consequences of his actions.”

What consequences? What tensions? Are we meant to applaud Woolmer’s Pakistan team for their sensitivity in not endorsing mass murder? Are we meant to worry that, having been accused of ball-tampering, they now will? Is this Woolmer’s intended inference, or is he clumsily linking two issues that are so far apart on the political and moral compass that even to hear them mentioned in the same thought process is tantamount to a declaration of war on intelligence?