I don't disagree, Chagur, but ...
I do think that that has already happened. Neither Osama or the perpetrators of the WTC/Pentagon action are/were exactly idiots.
It's just a number of things. On the one hand, you're absolutely right. To the other, I think I'm after a different process here.
* A common joke my friends and I held several years ago was that
There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom; for instance, I know cigarettes are harmful. This knowledge is not foreign to me, yet I still smoke.
* As some of our fellow posters have noted, knowledge (
science in the debate I'm recalling) can be abused. This can take many forms. The obvious is using knowledge of chemistry to kill people for political or religious sentiment; it's kind of a glaring issue right now. But how many "specialists" do you know that, despite their apparent intelligence (as evidenced by their grasp of their field), they have become so wrapped up in their work that they "stop being human"? This even in the sense that a man lets his work as a lawyer take precedence over his children (contrasted against the common "children are the future" sentiment in society), or an actor or model who teaches (even inadvertently) a child that appearance is everything.
Having considered the scope of the problem, I submit the notion that fundamentalism arises from a lack of
religious education. This is observable, as Karen Armstrong points out in
A History of God and devotes much attention to in
The Battle for God (this latter volume I have not yet read), in certain Islamic cultures where tyrants such as Ataturk and Khomeni purged the clerics and intellectuals upon establishing their regimes. With no "enlightened" guidance, common religion fell under the influence of superstition and bigotry, and results in people killing and dying for strange ideas about God.
This, I think, would go a long way toward explaining the rise in vicious fundamentalism such as we see in a bin Laden (as well as a few subjective, psychiatric notions, but that's speculative).
But the toppling sentiment I fear is a simple sympathy: as the bombs rain down and images flood the networks showing dying children, scorched flesh, ruined bodies and razed communities, there might spread a certain sense of excess among the more moderate Islamic community that could foster a new sentimental balance. Muslim nations supporting the US for political purposes might become less cooperative, or even take up opposition. At that point, it becomes frighteningly possible that our pursuit of terrorists will, indeed, bleed over into a Crusade against Islam. After all: You're either with us or against us.
At it's best, let's say we get bin Laden without a war. What now, insofar as the Taliban is concerned? Because even if we get bin Laden without a war, I don't think it's reasonable to expect to dismantle al Qaida without a nasty rumble. At worst, though, this could be huge; depending on how badly we upset whom with our actions, we very well could line up a notable portion of the Islamic world against us. And that would include the "average" Muslim who does not countenance terrorism. And at that point, we all have a really big problem on our hands.
I agree that our declared foe is hardly dull. But I do think the fundamentalism he serves is fostered by ignorance and undereducation. We know already to worry about these people, as it's kind of hard not to. But as the collateral damage from our pursuit begins to mount, will we be able to hold the attention and sentiment of the rest of the Islamic world? And if they line up in opposition, are we obliged by our declarations to knock them down? I see the potential for a huge war. And it should be no surprise to anyone here that the idea worries me.
thanx much,
Tiassa
