1974
Madmaxista
- Desde
- 16 Oct 2012
- Mensajes
- 4.984
- Reputación
- 8.880
Presenter: Joining our analysis board, Serafin Fanjul, professor of Arab studies.
Mr. Fanjul, good night.
Serafin Fanjul Good night.
P .: Thank you for joining us on a night like this to try to help us understand. And there is a question we have had for quite a while, after reading the French press, after reading the editorial in the New York Times ... Well, everyone is clear that we must finish off the DAESH the self-named Islamic State, but How? Do you have any thoughts about that?
S.F .: - I do not know, let's see; really from a military and law enforcement point of view, my contribution could be of little help.
I miccionan, I have no objection to admit that from the begining.
P .: 'It's not so much from a military point of view. The question is geo-strategically,the area, much of Syria, every military intervention in that area has a sequence of consequences that I understand understand but others not so much. Therefore it is very difficult for most of us to understand what could happen if any element is touched. That is why I ask you.
S.F. : Look here, if a (military) intervention is performed it has to be a large scale.
The problem in Iraqwas that the intervention scale was small.
Let's that the United States entered with 150 thousand soldiers, and any military analyst knows that with less than threefold the problem couldn't be adrresed properly. They knew it perfectly. So it went,that's why it was so serious and so many Americans died.
So if an intervention it is decided the United States, France, England,and probably Russia must be part of it, and they must face all the consequences.
Does this put an end to the problem of Islamic terrorism in Europe? Well probably not.
But it would be a relieve. No doubt that the situation would be mitigated. Those are desert areas with population concentrated in small towns, and they already control a territory between northern Iraq and northern Syria a quite remarkable area, not so much in population, and, well, the people who they would facing is very fanatical ; it would really necessary really to fight, of course,in a very serious way and this is what our countries need to be aware that in case we enter ther, we must go all in.
P .: - What are the differences between DAESH and Al-Qaeda?
S.F. : - Between the DAESH and Al-Qaeda? Well, Al-Qaeda has been left behind. It was a very diffuse organization it was not even a proper organization. Al-Qaeda in Arabic means "the base", and a number of different organizations, were supposed to be adhered to it as the Islamic Maghreb and the Boko Haram indirectly; what happens with DAESH is that it gets unite and builds up a form of embryo state in the north of Syria and Iraq, the Islamic caliphate, since last year. And that's the danger, for example, to the Arab monarchies of the Gulf, to the oil monarchies Saudi Arabia, for example, Kuwait, etc., that a power arises as a counter-power to their, based on Sunni Jovenlandeses, that understands and want to understand and apply Islam as radical or even more than theirs.
So that's where the real danger is for these oil monarchies, which I do not know why, since immemorial time, the western journalism calls "moderate".
P: When Carmen Rivera Lanuza before and ... - I copy the question because I think it comes handy-: Who sells -or who used to sell- to the DAESH its oil ?, we've now seen that precisely the US army is bombing their truck tankers to prevent it as becoming a source of funding. To Whom is it being sold?
S.F. Well, then, if you want me to give an exhaustive answer I do not know, but I suspect that China and possibly Japan. I do not know for sure. But what are the alternatives? Because certainly not Europe, the United States either. Or possibly there're Third World countries that buy it.
Chema 'And by the way, who is supplying weapons?
S.F. Well, there I think that in the international arms market there are many channels right? I order to get weaponry; for example, from disentegrated national armies or semi-dissolved ones in Africa, no doubt.
Do not forget that the Soviet Union crowded Africa with weapons and much of Asia. When the Soviet Union got rid of many of the arsenals, that stuff remained floating there, and all that stuff has found other channels. The problem is that the DAESH people may have access to heavy weaponry and anti-aircraft weaponry. That's what can really be a big difficulty for Western armies that might want to enter there.
P .: -Right away we'll open all rounds for asking questions.
For my part one more: a while ago at the beginning of the night in the conversation with one of the special correspondents sent by Spanish Television, with Victor Guerrero, he put ap iece of information on the table, well, to the reflection, that I want to ask about: four of the five terrorists arrested in the last hours were born in France ...
S.F.: 'Dead. you miccionan dead
P.: 'Dead, dead, yes. I was gonna say "arrested", detained after death ...
S. F.: Very "arrested".
Carmen Rivera: ho, ho, ho ...!
P .: Very arrested. Absolutely arrested. Eeeeh ... four of them, four of the five, were born in France; this data how do you read it...
SF: Well, you see, I have previously heard the conversation you had here in ...
I do not know ... I do not know what to call it ...: "gathering" I don't know if it's offensive ...
Ch .: -Conversation, conversation.
S. F.: -Conversation, good. And the issue has arisen. And you wondered << what we did wrong for this to occur? >>. This is a question that is repeated so many times in the media that to me seems really excessive. We could ask << What have we done well? >> And we can also include << What have we done wrong? >> Or what are we not doing...
It is also true that we can add "what have we done wrong" or "what is not to be done".
As far as I know France is spending a lot of money to the integration of Islamic communities precisely. But there are many immigrants in France, not now, but from long ago, from many places. Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Slavic, South American ..., none of these communities react this way. What's up? Well, anyway I do not want to play the haruspex character or being an exclusive interpreter but one explanation;I say one explanation is that Islamic communities are very reluctant to the interation and they practice a very close endogamy, especially through marriage,specially women, which automatically places them outside the mainstream society.
And is this a fault? Well I do not know. In any case, it is a form of behavior that generates in turn a reaction of society. What also you can add economic dislocation, lack of cultural level, etc.? True, these are all factors to take into account.
Now, all terrorists, especially the media and high levels, are all uprooted from the suburbs of Paris? Nope. Bin Laden was not, none of all of the terrorists in the New York attacks either. Some of the leaders, it seems, from this, that neither of them; those in London, the same wild who died a few days ago that throat slittered prisoners, it seems that hehad some fairly solid education then abandoned, but was picked up-he was of kuwaití origins-, he was welcomed in England with all the social benefits he and his family, he was able to study in a good school, and yet he chose to focus on something else.
It is also true-and that must be said that when a person feels himself uprooted he is likely to go to their roots, their origins, the origins of their parents, their community, because it looks for a certainty, because he seeks something secure in life to cling to; and if his surroundings in a suburb of Paris are not enough-and it is very possible that they are not- it is also easy to fall into one of these networks to attract people who in principle are not terrorists, that they are only, Pardon for the word, "a pissed off guy ", as there are from other sources too, I insist.
There has been in South America for decades and decades terrible guerrillas; there is still some in Colombia. They never went to attack the New York subway, never tried to topple down the Twin Towers, none of these guerrillas, and they were very anti-American. In Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Peru, in Colombia, of course. They never went to attack there.
So what happens then? That rejection takes a greater leap, it's not only just a personal problem, but in the background, even ugly to admit it, it is a clash of civilizations.
There is a clash of one origin who refuses to accept the situation that surrounds it and the shock occurs.
It looks to me that all of this is shameful. And ... of course, what is the solution? Well, to try to integrate them, obviously. Now, Do they allow that?
It is this is question that needs to be addresed and we must try to deal with it as
rationally and as objective as possible. Not just blame them for what they are doing, but obviously the responsible number one of a terrorist attack is the terrorist, and certainly the one who is behind it.
But it is also true that some general social conditions can be recognized, etc., that must be studied and should be alleviated. But to believe that everything will be resolved based on giving more money to mosques, that they (the french government) certainly do , in France and to whatever (religious) teaching organizations that they certainly do. To believe that this plan is going to solve is a nonsense. because it is not going t be solved that way!
In our case, I know that the Ministry of Justice is funding the building of mosques for long ago through indirect organizations. I can not say I like it, but I also don dislike it. If it were given to all, of course.
They are being given flats to live in for free ... of course, children are schooled ... what else can we do?
But if when the girl is 11 years her parents put her the scarf what can we do? If when getting married they bring her a much older relative from jovenlandéscco and they marry her with him and she is exhaustively prohibited to have any friendly relation with the little neighbors or with the kids at school. It is a quite rather crude matter when entering into those familiar levels.
And of course, that has consequences. There's no doubt that in any kind of endogamic group everything ends up generating a sense of marginalization. This is inevitable in every culture and in every moment of history.
It has always been like this; This does not miccionan you have to chase them or deport them or anything like that. I'm not saying that.
I just think we should encourage integration, but encourage it seriously.
Anyway I know that in these kind of conversations it is often not approved that we speak of history, which is far in time right ?, those are distant things, but I remind you ...
Let's see, I know the problems of Paris have been two days ago, and if I now speak of the Moors from the early sixteenth century they're going to say "you're going too far in time" ... Well, maybe not !, because it turns out that with the Moors in the early sixteenth century there was a real problem to integrate despite it was tried by all means, and they tried very seriously, precisely through intermarriage. Not only it had ill will on the part of the old Christians, there was !; I'm not here again dividing the world into good and bad and white and black. There was malice. But there were some attempts, especially the high clergy and the Crown, to integrate the Moors, and there was a fierce resistance in them; they even accepted baptism but then they did not participate, or kept apart quite different liturgies and rites, and even had attitudes ....
Ch .: - That crap that the only true religion is to be imposed you will agree with me that is not good..
That Christianity has fortunately managed to evolve.
SF: 'Of course, of course I do, but I also remind you at that time that the only criterion was that the own religion was the only true religion of all everywhere, huh?
Catholics behave like that of course, but the Calvinists, Anglicans did the same and so did the Jovenlandeses, who also forced conversion often under penalty of death, martyrdom, and so on.
Ch. Do they do that today?
S.F. Well, yes, they are even they doing that today. But, of course, I think it is ridiculously obvious to explain that I am in favor of freedom of religion, no way!, right? And I just try to see the phenomenon of the early sixteenth it as a historical phenomenon that can be used as an exemplification. I'm not saying that it si identical, and that is all the same. It is not. But there are plenty of those issues happening now too.
So to speak, there's ageneral attitude, and the imams are very very insistent, in that era and now, about the no integration.
But hey, I can even tell you thatr there are fatwas from the late fifteenth when it begins ... practically when the spanish reconquest ended, from an Algerian scholar Anwar Sadisi (), which decreed in a fatwa expressly that Jovenlandeses in territories conquered by the Christians should not to be leave in them because of the danger of ending up being Christians. And those fatwas were not a joke.
In other words, we believe in our actual Spanish mindset that "well, that's one thing that is written there ... Well, who cares right?", But they take it seriously! The Koran is not a peace of paper as, unfortunately, many Spaniards believe that the Bible is, "Well, some allegorical tales more or less rhetorical ...". They take it seriously! As indeed it is normal for a faithful believer of a religion to take their most holy sacred book seriously.
P: It's 23:52, we have up to 55, Chema. Brevity in the question and, if possible, quick response.
SF: Well, I have over extended my share time because I was allow to.
P: Sure, sure we allowed you.
SF .: - No, no, I miccionan I'm very grateful.
P: And believe me that I enjoyed listening to you, in short, a so consistent and so well constructed speech.
Ch .: I won't give in of pride arguing with you, because what I am doing is learning. But you used the phrase "clash of civilizations".
I think we are here calling this part to the Salafi fundamentalism, which already existed historically, the first target of their cruelty is to themselves. That is, in their territory the victims are their heritage, people, goods, and such, and we talked and we qualify them as a terrorist group because they are, because they are, and that's not the essence of Arab civilization therefore speak of a "clash of civilizations" , I find is that misguided; I don't know what do you think.
SF: Let's see, look, I know that Huntington's book had among other negative aspects to generate this mandatory confrontation in discussions. But Huntington gives data, and between the data provided, For every five inter-ethnic or inter-religious conflicts that have occurred in the last 20 or 30 years in the world in 4 Jovenlandeses were involved as one the parts. In four out of five, that's not an invention.
Does that miccionan that they seek to impose couscous or take away paella? No, just a view of life and the world in which I-in a very reductionist and simplistic way, the way that we are speaking now-l say "clash of civilizations".
Obviously human civilization, I agree, is one. There is only one human civilization, and what there is, are variants of all of them. Within human civilization there are different manifestations of human civilization that came to different ends. But sometimes these results collide, and in specific subject of inbreeding it is very clear, because these are not just two words - "clash of civilizations" - no, no.
There is what is implied for example is the freedom of women to decide, for example. And yes there you'll recognize that there's a clash.
Ch .: Absolutely. Absolutely.
S. F.: When what it is imposed...
Ch .: It's a violation of human rights.
S. F.: - human rights. But, of course, we can go further.
Another of the things that are said a lot these days is that ... Well, of course, that we do not understand them, etc. that moderate Jovenlandeses do not accept this. We'll see. If a Muslim is asked: Do you accept apostasy? -a moderate-Muslim, let's see if it is a moderate or not so moderate... because he will say no. And from their point of view he is right. Will you accept intermarriage? No. Will you accept the religious proselytizing of other religions in certain places, for example in Arabia-? He will say no.
It means that ... and you know what he is going to answer ?: "if I accepted all of that I would not be Muslim! And I agree with that Muslim. If he accepted all these things would not be a Muslim.
That' where the controversy of moderate Muslim or extremist Muslim comes.
You know, regular true Jovenlandeses, the majority, laugh at all these differences and all these distinctions we make in Europe, the United States, about moderates and extremists. They laugh !, because they know that it is our construct, not theirs. They just distinguish Jovenlandeses or non-Jovenlandeses.
If you do not accept these things ... Well, apart from accepting the Hadith and the Koran and a whole set of things. Apart from all these things, if you get away from orthodoxy in these key points , proselytizing, apostasy, intermarriage ... if you leave that you're not being Muslim.
C. R.: So it is incompatible the presence of Jovenlandeses in our civilization, just as you are say....
SF: I didn't say that, but you can draw the conclusions you want.
P: We have to stop here, it is five to twelve, eleven in the Canary islands. Mr. Fanjul, Serafín Fanjul, professor of Arab studies, thank you very much for coming to a conversation like this to tell us how much you know. Good evening.
S. F.: Now I know a little more ...
Ch. And what you keep for yourself, don't you?
SF: I keep it to myself callus because I have no choice.
P 'He came here to tell us part of what you know, not everything that you know because for that it would take hours and hours...
S. F .: OK, OK. Okay thank you very much.
Mr. Fanjul, good night.
Serafin Fanjul Good night.
P .: Thank you for joining us on a night like this to try to help us understand. And there is a question we have had for quite a while, after reading the French press, after reading the editorial in the New York Times ... Well, everyone is clear that we must finish off the DAESH the self-named Islamic State, but How? Do you have any thoughts about that?
S.F .: - I do not know, let's see; really from a military and law enforcement point of view, my contribution could be of little help.
I miccionan, I have no objection to admit that from the begining.
P .: 'It's not so much from a military point of view. The question is geo-strategically,the area, much of Syria, every military intervention in that area has a sequence of consequences that I understand understand but others not so much. Therefore it is very difficult for most of us to understand what could happen if any element is touched. That is why I ask you.
S.F. : Look here, if a (military) intervention is performed it has to be a large scale.
The problem in Iraqwas that the intervention scale was small.
Let's that the United States entered with 150 thousand soldiers, and any military analyst knows that with less than threefold the problem couldn't be adrresed properly. They knew it perfectly. So it went,that's why it was so serious and so many Americans died.
So if an intervention it is decided the United States, France, England,and probably Russia must be part of it, and they must face all the consequences.
Does this put an end to the problem of Islamic terrorism in Europe? Well probably not.
But it would be a relieve. No doubt that the situation would be mitigated. Those are desert areas with population concentrated in small towns, and they already control a territory between northern Iraq and northern Syria a quite remarkable area, not so much in population, and, well, the people who they would facing is very fanatical ; it would really necessary really to fight, of course,in a very serious way and this is what our countries need to be aware that in case we enter ther, we must go all in.
P .: - What are the differences between DAESH and Al-Qaeda?
S.F. : - Between the DAESH and Al-Qaeda? Well, Al-Qaeda has been left behind. It was a very diffuse organization it was not even a proper organization. Al-Qaeda in Arabic means "the base", and a number of different organizations, were supposed to be adhered to it as the Islamic Maghreb and the Boko Haram indirectly; what happens with DAESH is that it gets unite and builds up a form of embryo state in the north of Syria and Iraq, the Islamic caliphate, since last year. And that's the danger, for example, to the Arab monarchies of the Gulf, to the oil monarchies Saudi Arabia, for example, Kuwait, etc., that a power arises as a counter-power to their, based on Sunni Jovenlandeses, that understands and want to understand and apply Islam as radical or even more than theirs.
So that's where the real danger is for these oil monarchies, which I do not know why, since immemorial time, the western journalism calls "moderate".
P: When Carmen Rivera Lanuza before and ... - I copy the question because I think it comes handy-: Who sells -or who used to sell- to the DAESH its oil ?, we've now seen that precisely the US army is bombing their truck tankers to prevent it as becoming a source of funding. To Whom is it being sold?
S.F. Well, then, if you want me to give an exhaustive answer I do not know, but I suspect that China and possibly Japan. I do not know for sure. But what are the alternatives? Because certainly not Europe, the United States either. Or possibly there're Third World countries that buy it.
Chema 'And by the way, who is supplying weapons?
S.F. Well, there I think that in the international arms market there are many channels right? I order to get weaponry; for example, from disentegrated national armies or semi-dissolved ones in Africa, no doubt.
Do not forget that the Soviet Union crowded Africa with weapons and much of Asia. When the Soviet Union got rid of many of the arsenals, that stuff remained floating there, and all that stuff has found other channels. The problem is that the DAESH people may have access to heavy weaponry and anti-aircraft weaponry. That's what can really be a big difficulty for Western armies that might want to enter there.
P .: -Right away we'll open all rounds for asking questions.
For my part one more: a while ago at the beginning of the night in the conversation with one of the special correspondents sent by Spanish Television, with Victor Guerrero, he put ap iece of information on the table, well, to the reflection, that I want to ask about: four of the five terrorists arrested in the last hours were born in France ...
S.F.: 'Dead. you miccionan dead
P.: 'Dead, dead, yes. I was gonna say "arrested", detained after death ...
S. F.: Very "arrested".
Carmen Rivera: ho, ho, ho ...!
P .: Very arrested. Absolutely arrested. Eeeeh ... four of them, four of the five, were born in France; this data how do you read it...
SF: Well, you see, I have previously heard the conversation you had here in ...
I do not know ... I do not know what to call it ...: "gathering" I don't know if it's offensive ...
Ch .: -Conversation, conversation.
S. F.: -Conversation, good. And the issue has arisen. And you wondered << what we did wrong for this to occur? >>. This is a question that is repeated so many times in the media that to me seems really excessive. We could ask << What have we done well? >> And we can also include << What have we done wrong? >> Or what are we not doing...
It is also true that we can add "what have we done wrong" or "what is not to be done".
As far as I know France is spending a lot of money to the integration of Islamic communities precisely. But there are many immigrants in France, not now, but from long ago, from many places. Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Slavic, South American ..., none of these communities react this way. What's up? Well, anyway I do not want to play the haruspex character or being an exclusive interpreter but one explanation;I say one explanation is that Islamic communities are very reluctant to the interation and they practice a very close endogamy, especially through marriage,specially women, which automatically places them outside the mainstream society.
And is this a fault? Well I do not know. In any case, it is a form of behavior that generates in turn a reaction of society. What also you can add economic dislocation, lack of cultural level, etc.? True, these are all factors to take into account.
Now, all terrorists, especially the media and high levels, are all uprooted from the suburbs of Paris? Nope. Bin Laden was not, none of all of the terrorists in the New York attacks either. Some of the leaders, it seems, from this, that neither of them; those in London, the same wild who died a few days ago that throat slittered prisoners, it seems that hehad some fairly solid education then abandoned, but was picked up-he was of kuwaití origins-, he was welcomed in England with all the social benefits he and his family, he was able to study in a good school, and yet he chose to focus on something else.
It is also true-and that must be said that when a person feels himself uprooted he is likely to go to their roots, their origins, the origins of their parents, their community, because it looks for a certainty, because he seeks something secure in life to cling to; and if his surroundings in a suburb of Paris are not enough-and it is very possible that they are not- it is also easy to fall into one of these networks to attract people who in principle are not terrorists, that they are only, Pardon for the word, "a pissed off guy ", as there are from other sources too, I insist.
There has been in South America for decades and decades terrible guerrillas; there is still some in Colombia. They never went to attack the New York subway, never tried to topple down the Twin Towers, none of these guerrillas, and they were very anti-American. In Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Peru, in Colombia, of course. They never went to attack there.
So what happens then? That rejection takes a greater leap, it's not only just a personal problem, but in the background, even ugly to admit it, it is a clash of civilizations.
There is a clash of one origin who refuses to accept the situation that surrounds it and the shock occurs.
It looks to me that all of this is shameful. And ... of course, what is the solution? Well, to try to integrate them, obviously. Now, Do they allow that?
It is this is question that needs to be addresed and we must try to deal with it as
rationally and as objective as possible. Not just blame them for what they are doing, but obviously the responsible number one of a terrorist attack is the terrorist, and certainly the one who is behind it.
But it is also true that some general social conditions can be recognized, etc., that must be studied and should be alleviated. But to believe that everything will be resolved based on giving more money to mosques, that they (the french government) certainly do , in France and to whatever (religious) teaching organizations that they certainly do. To believe that this plan is going to solve is a nonsense. because it is not going t be solved that way!
In our case, I know that the Ministry of Justice is funding the building of mosques for long ago through indirect organizations. I can not say I like it, but I also don dislike it. If it were given to all, of course.
They are being given flats to live in for free ... of course, children are schooled ... what else can we do?
But if when the girl is 11 years her parents put her the scarf what can we do? If when getting married they bring her a much older relative from jovenlandéscco and they marry her with him and she is exhaustively prohibited to have any friendly relation with the little neighbors or with the kids at school. It is a quite rather crude matter when entering into those familiar levels.
And of course, that has consequences. There's no doubt that in any kind of endogamic group everything ends up generating a sense of marginalization. This is inevitable in every culture and in every moment of history.
It has always been like this; This does not miccionan you have to chase them or deport them or anything like that. I'm not saying that.
I just think we should encourage integration, but encourage it seriously.
Anyway I know that in these kind of conversations it is often not approved that we speak of history, which is far in time right ?, those are distant things, but I remind you ...
Let's see, I know the problems of Paris have been two days ago, and if I now speak of the Moors from the early sixteenth century they're going to say "you're going too far in time" ... Well, maybe not !, because it turns out that with the Moors in the early sixteenth century there was a real problem to integrate despite it was tried by all means, and they tried very seriously, precisely through intermarriage. Not only it had ill will on the part of the old Christians, there was !; I'm not here again dividing the world into good and bad and white and black. There was malice. But there were some attempts, especially the high clergy and the Crown, to integrate the Moors, and there was a fierce resistance in them; they even accepted baptism but then they did not participate, or kept apart quite different liturgies and rites, and even had attitudes ....
Ch .: - That crap that the only true religion is to be imposed you will agree with me that is not good..
That Christianity has fortunately managed to evolve.
SF: 'Of course, of course I do, but I also remind you at that time that the only criterion was that the own religion was the only true religion of all everywhere, huh?
Catholics behave like that of course, but the Calvinists, Anglicans did the same and so did the Jovenlandeses, who also forced conversion often under penalty of death, martyrdom, and so on.
Ch. Do they do that today?
S.F. Well, yes, they are even they doing that today. But, of course, I think it is ridiculously obvious to explain that I am in favor of freedom of religion, no way!, right? And I just try to see the phenomenon of the early sixteenth it as a historical phenomenon that can be used as an exemplification. I'm not saying that it si identical, and that is all the same. It is not. But there are plenty of those issues happening now too.
So to speak, there's ageneral attitude, and the imams are very very insistent, in that era and now, about the no integration.
But hey, I can even tell you thatr there are fatwas from the late fifteenth when it begins ... practically when the spanish reconquest ended, from an Algerian scholar Anwar Sadisi (), which decreed in a fatwa expressly that Jovenlandeses in territories conquered by the Christians should not to be leave in them because of the danger of ending up being Christians. And those fatwas were not a joke.
In other words, we believe in our actual Spanish mindset that "well, that's one thing that is written there ... Well, who cares right?", But they take it seriously! The Koran is not a peace of paper as, unfortunately, many Spaniards believe that the Bible is, "Well, some allegorical tales more or less rhetorical ...". They take it seriously! As indeed it is normal for a faithful believer of a religion to take their most holy sacred book seriously.
P: It's 23:52, we have up to 55, Chema. Brevity in the question and, if possible, quick response.
SF: Well, I have over extended my share time because I was allow to.
P: Sure, sure we allowed you.
SF .: - No, no, I miccionan I'm very grateful.
P: And believe me that I enjoyed listening to you, in short, a so consistent and so well constructed speech.
Ch .: I won't give in of pride arguing with you, because what I am doing is learning. But you used the phrase "clash of civilizations".
I think we are here calling this part to the Salafi fundamentalism, which already existed historically, the first target of their cruelty is to themselves. That is, in their territory the victims are their heritage, people, goods, and such, and we talked and we qualify them as a terrorist group because they are, because they are, and that's not the essence of Arab civilization therefore speak of a "clash of civilizations" , I find is that misguided; I don't know what do you think.
SF: Let's see, look, I know that Huntington's book had among other negative aspects to generate this mandatory confrontation in discussions. But Huntington gives data, and between the data provided, For every five inter-ethnic or inter-religious conflicts that have occurred in the last 20 or 30 years in the world in 4 Jovenlandeses were involved as one the parts. In four out of five, that's not an invention.
Does that miccionan that they seek to impose couscous or take away paella? No, just a view of life and the world in which I-in a very reductionist and simplistic way, the way that we are speaking now-l say "clash of civilizations".
Obviously human civilization, I agree, is one. There is only one human civilization, and what there is, are variants of all of them. Within human civilization there are different manifestations of human civilization that came to different ends. But sometimes these results collide, and in specific subject of inbreeding it is very clear, because these are not just two words - "clash of civilizations" - no, no.
There is what is implied for example is the freedom of women to decide, for example. And yes there you'll recognize that there's a clash.
Ch .: Absolutely. Absolutely.
S. F.: When what it is imposed...
Ch .: It's a violation of human rights.
S. F.: - human rights. But, of course, we can go further.
Another of the things that are said a lot these days is that ... Well, of course, that we do not understand them, etc. that moderate Jovenlandeses do not accept this. We'll see. If a Muslim is asked: Do you accept apostasy? -a moderate-Muslim, let's see if it is a moderate or not so moderate... because he will say no. And from their point of view he is right. Will you accept intermarriage? No. Will you accept the religious proselytizing of other religions in certain places, for example in Arabia-? He will say no.
It means that ... and you know what he is going to answer ?: "if I accepted all of that I would not be Muslim! And I agree with that Muslim. If he accepted all these things would not be a Muslim.
That' where the controversy of moderate Muslim or extremist Muslim comes.
You know, regular true Jovenlandeses, the majority, laugh at all these differences and all these distinctions we make in Europe, the United States, about moderates and extremists. They laugh !, because they know that it is our construct, not theirs. They just distinguish Jovenlandeses or non-Jovenlandeses.
If you do not accept these things ... Well, apart from accepting the Hadith and the Koran and a whole set of things. Apart from all these things, if you get away from orthodoxy in these key points , proselytizing, apostasy, intermarriage ... if you leave that you're not being Muslim.
C. R.: So it is incompatible the presence of Jovenlandeses in our civilization, just as you are say....
SF: I didn't say that, but you can draw the conclusions you want.
P: We have to stop here, it is five to twelve, eleven in the Canary islands. Mr. Fanjul, Serafín Fanjul, professor of Arab studies, thank you very much for coming to a conversation like this to tell us how much you know. Good evening.
S. F.: Now I know a little more ...
Ch. And what you keep for yourself, don't you?
SF: I keep it to myself callus because I have no choice.
P 'He came here to tell us part of what you know, not everything that you know because for that it would take hours and hours...
S. F .: OK, OK. Okay thank you very much.
