Sunday, May 22, 2005

By my reckoning, just five American newspapers this last week mentioned Imran Khan.

Who? Well, he’s a world-famous ? wait for it — cricketer. No, hang on, don’t all stampede for the exits, this isn’t a column about cricket. He is, as it happens, a beautiful cricketer, the first great fast bowler from the Indian Sub-continent and … whoops, no, honestly, it’s not a cricket column. But the point is he’s a household name in England, Australia, India and everywhere else where the summer game means the thwack of leather on willow.

And in the same week a mere handful of American media outlets mentioned Imran, more than 100 newspapers mentioned Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff. Mr. Isikoff filed the phony-baloney story about some interrogator at Guantanamo flushing a Koran down the toilet.

But Imran, in a ferocious speech broadcast on Pakistani TV, brought it to the attention of his fellow Muslims, many of whom promptly rioted, with the result 17 people are dead.

To date, reaction has divided along two lines. Newsweek has been hammered for being so flushed with anti-Bush anti-military fever it breezily neglected to consider whether the story would generate a huge mound of corpses.

That is true. On the other hand, there are those who point out it’s hardly Newsweek’s fault some goofy foreigners are so bananas they’ll riot and kill over one rumor of one disrespectful act to one copy of one book. Christians don’t riot over derogatory references to Christ and other provocations by incontinent “artists.” Jews take it in their stride when they’re described as “a virus resembling AIDS,” which is what Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris said a week ago in his sermon on Palestinian state TV, funded by the European Union. Muslims can dish it out big-time, so why can’t they take it, even the teensy-weensiest bit?

All that is also true, but would be a better defense of Newsweek if the media hadn’t spent the last 3 years bending over backward to be supersensitive to the, ah, touchiness of the Muslim world — until the opportunity for a bit of lurid Bush-bashing proved too much to resist.

In a way, both the U.S. media and those wacky rioters in the Afghan-Pakistani hinterlands are very similar: two highly parochial and monumentally self-absorbed tribes isolated from the rest of the world and prone to fanatical irrational indestructible beliefs — not least the notion you can flush a 950-page book down one of Al Gore’s eco-crazed federally-mandated low-flush toilets, a claim no editorial bigfoot thought to test for himself in Newsweek’s executive washroom.

Watching the media circle the wagons around the beleaguered Mr. Isikoff this week, Martin Peretz of the New Republic described them as “a profession that is complacent, self-righteous, and hopelessly in love with itself.” The media are the message: But, hey, enough about the war, let’s talk about me.

As for the wackiness of Muslim fanatics, well, up to a point. But, you know, we’ve been told ever since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the allegedly seething “Muslim street” was about to explode and for four years it remained as somnolent as a suburban cul-de-sac on a weekday afternoon.

Invade their countries, topple their rulers, bomb their infrastructure from the first day of Ramadan to the last, arrest their terrorists, hold them at Gitmo for half a decade, initiate reforms setting the Arab world on the first rung of the ladder to political and economic liberty… and the seething Muslim street gives one almighty shrug.

In October 2001, Faizal Aqtub Siddiqi, president-general of the International Muslims Organization, warned that the bombing of Afghanistan would create 1,000 bin Ladens. In April 2003, Egypt’s President Mubarak warned the bombing of Iraq would create 100 bin Ladens.

So right there you had a 90 percent reduction in the bin Laden creation program — just by bombing a second country. Despite the best efforts to rouse the Muslim street, its attitude has remained: Start the jihad without me. The short history of the last four years is: They’re nuts but not that nuts.

Until, that is, Newsweek’s story of Koran-flushing prompted bloody riots from Yemen to Afghanistan to Indonesia. To get a rise out of these guys, it took a peculiarly vivid combination of disrespect — the literal word of Allah plus the flush toilet, a quintessential symbol of Western decadence to the remoter parts of the Hindu Kush. Message to George W. Bush: You can do anything but lay off of my Holy Book.

And even these riots wouldn’t have happened if Imran Khan hadn’t provided the short fuse between Newsweek’s match and those explosive mobs. Imran is a highly Westernized wealthy Pakistani who found great fame and fortune in England. He palled around with the Rolling Stones, dated supermodels, and married Jemima Goldsmith, daughter of billionaire businessman Sir James Goldsmith. Jemima was hot but of Jewish background and therefore, like much of Imran’s stereotypical playboy lifestyle, not particularly advantageous when he decided to enter Pakistani politics.

So, having demonstrated little previous interest in the Muslim street’s preoccupations, Imran began pandering to it. I doubt he personally cared one way or the other about that Newsweek story but he’s an opportunist and that’s why he went out of his way to incite his excitable followers.

It’s not the mobs, so much as the determination of the elites to keep their peoples ignorant. The most educationally repressive form of Islam, for example, is funded and promoted by Saudi princes who, though not as handsome as Imran, also spend a lot of time in the West — gambling, drinking, womanizing and indulging other tastes that even the wildest night on the tiles in Riyadh just can’t sate.

While most advanced societies believe an educated population is vital to the national interest, many Muslim elites seem to have concluded an uneducated population is actually far more useful. And, when you look at Saudi funding of radical madrassahs in hitherto moderate Muslim regions from the Balkans to Indonesia, it’s hard to avoid concluding they’re having great success de-educating hitherto relatively savvy parts of the world.

This disaster required a combination of factors. We can’t do much about Muslim fanatics; we probably can’t do much about our self-worshipping vanity media whose reflexive counter-tribalism has robbed it of all sense of perspective or proportion. But we ought to apply pressure on the link between the two worlds — the self-serving elites who enjoy the privileges of the West even as they exploit their coreligionists’ ignorance of it.

That’s just not cricket, is it?

Mark Steyn is senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc. Publications, senior North American columnist for Britain’s Telegraph Group, North American editor for the Spectator, and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2022 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide