Bob: If ISIS fanatics were looking to spark outrage from the West for smashing priceless artifacts (or facsimiles thereof) they got their wish. Fourteen years after the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan, the ISIS video outrage was antiquity iniquity redux. But New York Times foreign correspondent Rukmini Callimachi says it could alienate the very people they might seek to enlist, despite the Koranic passage ISIS uses to justify the destruction.

Callimachi:  There’s a well known section in the biography of the Prophet Muhammed that talks about how the Prophet was exiled from Mecca. And when he returned, he refused to go into the Kaaba, which is that famous black rock, until the pagan idols that were inside were removed. So they point to that incident and others as justifying the smashing of idols.

Bob: But over 1400 years, there’s been room in Islam for artworks, whether tapestries, or painted works, or sculptures; people seem to have been able to grasp, through the history of Islam, the difference between an idol, a false God, and a piece of artwork depicting something else altogether. 

Callimachi: You know, even within Jihadi groups, this is an issue of contention. When I was in Timbuktu covering the aftermath of the french liberation of the city, I found thousands of pages of documents that were left behind by the Al Qaeda cell that had run the city. Handwritten notes dealing with the destruction of the mausoleums of Timbuktu. And what you saw in those notes is there was dissent. There was discussion among them about, should we go ahead and do this, should we not go ahead and do this. And significantly, I found a letter from the head of Al Qaeda's branch in North Africa, Abdel Malik Druktal, which is addressed to the fighters, where he essentially reproaches them for having destroyed the mausoleums. And what he says to them is, theologically you are correct. These mausoleums are against the law of god, and in a perfect world we should get rid of them. However, by doing so, you've succeeded in really upsetting the people of Timbuktu.

Bob: The Al Qaeda North African leader says you’re going to really really risk backlash from the population, who may also be very devout, but not when it comes to their tourist attractions. They may be able to put up with a beheading here or there, but lay off the cash cow. Am I being illiberal in my interpretation?

Callimachi: No I think there's something to that. This was a city that lived off of its tourism. And these were sites that were very dear. People of Timbuktu traced their lineage to these various sites. So its also like going to the grave of a loved once. When I showed up and I started reporting on the aftermath of the Al Qaeda rule of Timbuktu, asking people what it was that really upset them, what was the point of no return, I assumed it was one amputation that happened in Timbuktu of an alleged thief. There was also an execution of a suspected murderer. I thought those graphic and very violent acts - that those would be the things that really had revolted people. And in fact, where these people lost all sympathy was when they smashed their ancient heritage. That also speaks I think, Bob, to an important difference between Al Qaeda and ISIS. You see in this letter from this Al Qaeda commander where's he's essentially telling them, look, you need to be more pragmatic. Pulling back from some of this extremism, in hopes of getting some of the people on their side. ISIS is going headlong into the other direction. If you watch the video of the destruction at this museum, one of the things that one of the fighters screams is, Even if these things are worth a billion dollars, we don't care, their haram, they're forbidden, and he goes ahead and smashes them.

Bob: Who is more hypocritical, the Al Qaeda guy who say never mind ideological purity, we’ve got to think of political backlash here, or ISIS, who are destroying antiquities on the grounds of idolatry, but probably selling them to smugglers to raise cash. Who has a worse case to make to potential jihadis?

Callimachi: If I just look out at the landscape of jihadi groups that are out there today - and they fall broadly into two camps. Those that are aligned with ISIS or want to become part of ISIS and those that are under the umbrella of Al Qaeda or are petitioning to become part of Al Qaeda. It's my opinion that Al Qaeda has a more dangerous proposition. They've become smarter, they've become more pragmatic. They understand that you can't win this fight if you completely turn off the population that you're supposed to be ruling. They have an organization that can withstand the test of time. Whereas ISIS is so brutal and its going to be very hard to defeat - but the extent of their brutality will eventually be their undoing.

Bob: If that takes place, and Al Qaeda like for example Hezbollah and the PLO before it gain legitimacy, what does that say about the politics of the region?

Callimachi: I think it's deeply problematic. They're becoming deeply adamant about one thing, and that is that when they do operations Muslim civilians should not be targeted and should not be the victims. Numerous Muslim civilians are killed in Al Qaeda attacks, but its interesting that they are making that distinction. In the fall of 2013 I was sent to Nairobi to cover the attack on the Westgate mall, which is one of the posh malls in Nairobi that was attacked by Shabaab, Al Qaeda's franchise in East Africa. And one of the most chilling things that I learned when I was doing interviews with survivors, is that those that had actually interacted with the gunman were given a chance to answer specific Muslim questions. Things like, What is the name of the mother of the prophet Mohammed. Those that answered correctly were spared, and those that did not were executed on the spot. It's my opinion that they manage to carry out terrorist attacks where only the so-called infidels are the ones who die, and Muslims are spared, that will go very far to exacerbating this clash of civilizations that they are trying to stir up. Because what they are trying to do is create a divide between Muslims, and everybody else. 

Rukmini thank you very much.

Callimachi: Thank you Bob.

BOB:  Rukmini Callimachi is a foreign correspondent for the New York Times.