In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/11199
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
tanmia-ic 10/05/2010 04:37 AM Report
mackmeen comented:
mackmeen 09/19/2010 09:57 PM Report Who knows if we'll evolve away from the worldwide ethno-religious killing cycle, but it seems like Ramadan is working to inspire us to deal with one another in a positive, enlightened way. I do wish he'd said more about women instead of just mentioning us in passing at the end. I also wanted to know more about how progressive Christians or Muslims are going to wake up to the unmanageable paradox of saying their faith is mostly about peace and pluralism when, as he said, their holy books are so much about self-righteous God-backed triumphalism over enemies of the faith. It just seems like you have to bend over backwards so far to reconcile the holy books to modernity that maybe somebody ought to just say, hey, let's authorize ourselves to write a new chapter called PEACE, instead of looking for the bright spots with which to rationalize these ancient texts, even to the point of absurdity.
May I, Abdel Muttalib Balla Zahran, comment that the endeared " PEACE" Chapter has been in the Quoran inbedded in the verse " you, Mohammed, are to remind not to force". THE Full DETAILED CHAPTER HAS NOW BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL HUMANITY "The Second Message of Islam"; acclaimed, with full qualification of Martyrdom, by Mahmoud mohammed Taha. Please seek full reference at the website: www.alfikra.org.
mackmeen 09/19/2010 09:57 PM Report
Who knows if we'll evolve away from the worldwide ethno-religious killing cycle, but it seems like Ramadan is working to inspire us to deal with one another in a positive, enlightened way. I do wish he'd said more about women instead of just mentioning us in passing at the end. I also wanted to know more about how progressive Christians or Muslims are going to wake up to the unmanageable paradox of saying their faith is mostly about peace and pluralism when, as he said, their holy books are so much about self-righteous God-backed triumphalism over enemies of the faith. It just seems like you have to bend over backwards so far to reconcile the holy books to modernity that maybe somebody ought to just say, hey, let's authorize ourselves to write a new chapter called PEACE, instead of looking for the bright spots with which to rationalize these ancient texts, even to the point of absurdity.
SharkswithfrikingLazers 09/15/2010 05:16 PM Report
Great interview! Great question here: CHARLIE ROSE: OK, tell me what Islam is and what Islam is not.
I loved Tariq's statement later in the interview " . . . sometimes you can be very sophisticated, very educated but you have a dogmatic mind, and the dogmatic mind is binary mind, us versus them, black and white. And then I am right, so you are wrong, I can impose on you the fact I am right by any means possible." However, my Greek Orthodox cousin keeps focusing my attention to Surah 9:30 and 31, regarding Jews and Christians being infidels; that, too, he says is binary.
YES, we must change the narrative in Muslim countries--"60 Minutes" did a segment on this too. Tony Blair has it right.
Most importantly though--Peace be with You!
robdverity 09/13/2010 03:33 PM Report
Small points indeed. Particularly when measured against the 100:1 kill ratio of Pals by Israelis. Daily violence? Try just one in Pal. where they exist in their own excrement.
Naievete here is not innocence, it is collaboration with deceit and deception.
ShalomFreedman 09/13/2010 02:46 PM Report
Two small additional points.
This wonderfully tolerant person when speaking about the Holy Land does not use the term , 'Israel'. He uses the term 'Palestine' for the whole land thus implicitly denying the existence of Israel.
An additional point. Charlie Rose speaks of 'The Muslim Brotherhood' as if it were the Cistercians. Ramadan's family including both his grandfather, a founder of the Islamic brotherhood, and his father a very activist member in it were involved deeply in this fundamentalist Islamic organization.
ShalomFreedman 09/13/2010 02:38 PM Report
Charlie Rose is not good at showing up double- talkers. Ramadan in defining Islam as primarily a religion of peace wholly seems to believe that everyone in the world is totally stupid, and does not see the daily violence which comes from the Islamic world. Suicide- bombers apparently are angels of peace.
Naievete here is not innocence, it is collaboration with deceit and deception.
robdverity 09/13/2010 02:25 PM Report
My, my the collective poor accumulates to sums that produce the likes of Citigroup billions in bonuses (credit card predation alone), but the collective logic between you two is only in the word itself - that you insecurely had to repeat - and then point out, again!!
dood - I'm shocked and awed that you would ever resort to sarcasm. Has to be a first. (Or have you infected me? - and Neil?)
doodah 09/13/2010 10:00 AM Report
Yeah rob, I was just sarcastically exaggerating that Pooh Bear was 'stealing' from the poor. Why would anyone steal from the poor? They don't have anything worth stealing. Were you born yesterday, rob?
NeilMacCallister 09/13/2010 07:44 AM Report
Just as a point of logic, rob, ..you are saying that the penthouses and villas, marble-floored offices, and personal yachts that these financiers and government personnel possess, ..were gotten from poor people?
How did the poor people come to be in possession of such things in the first place? ..and/or why wouldn't these "robbers" just have stolen from the rich, instead? ..wouldn't that have been a much more efficient use of their time and energy?
But if they did steal these things from the poor, ..what was the nature of the gun they used to commit the robbery? ..or alternatively, if a gun was not used, why didn't those poor people just say "No, I will not give these things up"?
Just as a point of logic, rob (..oh! ..There's that word again!!)
robdverity 09/12/2010 07:41 PM Report
Merely agreeing with you, Winnie and current day capitalists do indeed steal from the poor. Hank Paulson, the master thief, followed in turn by Bobby Rubin, Lloyd Blankfein, yadda well you know the rest - by occupation if not by name.
doodah 09/12/2010 05:59 PM Report
you're assuming quite a lot there, fartpuppet.
robdverity 09/12/2010 03:57 PM Report
Because you feel no shame does not make you shameless. Ask Floyd Blankfein and his Goldman Sacs band of thieves. "... in your own pocket?," were it so. We've just had a world wide melt-down of the so-called shameless capitalists fleecing the pockets of everyone save their own, and you two geniuses spouting the merits of capitalism like you invented it.
Real capitalism (like any ism) only works in a relative corruption-free system. Laissez faire in a pig's ass in other words. They can and did buy every predatory legislation conceivable to fleece "others pockets."
And what's with these AHAH! epiphanies? Who the hell is sockpuppet, tartuffe?
doodah's, (aka doodahdaze, Preston) has the most accurate description of a capitalist with his Winnie the Pooh illustration: he stole from the poor.
Doubtless a Judeo-Christian capitalist - an even more putrescent anathema.
doodah 09/12/2010 08:37 AM Report
No. Eeyore was not the 'shameless capitalist', Winnie the Pooh was; every time he got a hold of some honey (some good cheap honey), cheap!? Hell! . He stole it, from them poor hard working bees. Eeyore just could never enjoy the 'good fortune'. probably a chemical imbalance.?. Or a, 'Shameless Misanthrope'. .. what's your take, rob?
NeilMacCallister 09/12/2010 08:13 AM Report
Hah! ..sockpuppet, .."espy"!!! ..I DO remember!
..'Tartuffe the Misanthrope'!
Hah!
**
...but Eeyore, doodah? ..a "shameless capitalist"???
As if it is a "shame" to live off of what you have in your own pocket?
I admire people with that ability, ..and of that decision.
I believe that is the real strength! (.. .."Eeyore!!!")
Good luck to us all!
doodah 09/12/2010 07:13 AM Report
So you're just, major-league 'cynical'. .. who wooulda thunk it?.
Next anonymous name for 'sock puppet' aka 'tartufe' aka 'robdverity' is - 'Eeyore' (that depressed cynical donkey in the Winnie the Poo cartoon used to brainwash the youth to be shameless capitalists). . God!? Sure! I believe in God! Screw the next guy before he screws you!
NeilMacCallister 09/12/2010 06:57 AM Report
Enjoy your box, rob.
Does that box feel safe to you? ..Your toes squished into the close corners, and its lid locked down so tight?
robdverity 09/12/2010 03:37 AM Report
Pandora has emptied her box. If the murderous US and Israel can have nukes "that kill millions at a time," why not Iran? We and they have killed, in recent history at any rate, a helluva lot more than Iran. We get-off on killing. We have generals that profess enjoying killing ragheads. We brutalize our young into mental breakdowns and suicides.
This world is far from blessed, by any real or fictional phenomena - of any label. Yes probabilities shout that someone will ultimately use the bomb. I just have a hard time giving much of a damn whose it is. Our species is dumber than owl-shit and are working hard to deserve whatever they get.
Hey, an epiphany, why don't we invent a supreme being, give him a iconic label - say Jehoshaphat, and pray to him incessantly to head off the inevitable? We'll offer Alms of course. You pass the plate.
NeilMacCallister 09/11/2010 09:06 PM Report
rob, ..you are so funny, ..you are such a one-train tunnel.
If you have been "robbed of verity", it is by your own single-eyed vision.
***
You here label the Iranian government as "delusional", ..and then say you trust them with weapons which kill millions of people at a time.
***
God Bless this world,..
we really need it!!
robdverity 09/11/2010 04:57 PM Report
65 yrs? Of course not! The US and/or Israel will rationalize a preemptive use before then. All in the name of peace of course. Just as the first uses in Japan you cited. Unnecessary! They were a message to the Soviets, not a means of ending a war, it was already won.
We of the Judeo-Christian era love mayhem and death too much to not rationalize a first-use scenario (Iran) well before 65 yrs go by. And yes I think they will sit on any nukes they make basking in the delusional respect they think they deserve.
I also think militarily denying them will be the tipping point. The after math (world chaos, Islamic broiling, oil skyrocketing, increased missiles to Hamas et al) will be much more than forecasts can imagine. It will also perversely authenticate just how influential nuke possession is (not the reverse). Proliferation enhanced.
Iran should be a peripheral incentive for Israel to curb settlements and seriously try for peace; - NEVER HAPPEN!!!
Zionists and Christians thrive on mayhem and killing. Never let a good rationalization elude the moment. WMDs worked before so go with what works.
NeilMacCallister 09/10/2010 10:31 PM Report
Well rob, ..you can call it "armed intervention into Iran" if you like, ..I would just call it taking the gun away from a wanna-be hijacker.
Yes, I would have dropped "12-hour warning" leaflets upon those Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities at sunrise on one of those early December 2008 mornings, ..and then destroyed those facilities at sunset.
I am truly surprised that wasn't done.
***
Remember, the United States, and the Soviet Union, both held nuclear weapons for 65-plus years without their being used, after they were first dragged-in and regrettably presented in order to stop a world war.
If Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps obtains a nuclear weapon, will it also sit un-used on a shelf for 65 years?
..or will it in fact be used to start a yet larger war which will then produce a thousand times more deaths than the world is presently forced to suffer?
I would rather the world's children didn't have to live through that.
***
BTW, ..I think "religion" has less to do with the whole affair, than just plain old "this-worldly" greed!
Hey, ..maybe we'll talk again in 10 years, and see how it all comes out?
doodah 09/10/2010 10:15 PM Report
Socrates understood that most conversation is bullshit, because while we use the same words, those words hold different meanings to each individual. so in effect we just talk AT each other, not TO each other (not much different than neighborhood dogs barking into the night air).
The main difference between Christianity and Islam, is that the intelligent, peaceful Muslims (according to this guy, the majority) have no power in their countries. No power to subdue the homicidal fundamentalists (the minority, this guy says). Like we do in predominantly Christian countries (just ask David Koresh). No ATF in Pakistan to shoot up Al Quaida compounds. And one has to wonder if that is done by choice by the 'majority' of 'peaceful' Muslims. They do see they are slipping in all aspects of evolutionary competition. Much of their hatred is born out of pure jealousy. So whenever they see them stick it to the non-Muslims it gives them a shot of validation. . why aren't the Hindus and Buddhists as belligerent? . It's always the Muslims that can't get along.
robdverity 09/10/2010 08:42 PM Report
Enlighten me Neil, you're not being (religiously?) sarcastic are you? Surely not! Or is it merely my 'perception?' It's refreshing to have my points validated by your labels of my being "a temperate and tolerant man." So look-at-me I'm of the faithful, so obviously my beliefs are inviolate, and worth YOU dying for. Your last three Paragraphs demonstrate that.
Your own jingoism belies any faux temperance and tolerance.
Betting you're a proponent of armed intervention into Iran; thus a step closer to our ultimate demise (on behalf of Israel) caused by religion.
Shalom (in a pig's ass). Temperant enuff?
Spot on GK2.
NeilMacCallister 09/10/2010 06:11 PM Report
Gee rob, ..is it your having "purified" yourself of any spiritual thoughts which has made you into such a temperate and tolerant man?
GK2 09/10/2010 05:07 PM Report
It's exhausting. I think it's time we stop calling religions what we want them to be and start calling them what they are: good intentioned but misguided philosophies left from the first century or earlier, sometimes later, often dependent on abhorrent violence and fantastic notions as convincers. This isn't worth the respect it demands. Islam is not a peaceful religion as long as its unalterable text professes atrocious behavior as excusable in any regard. This is just as applicable to the Bible. The day we burn all religious books derived from uncivil times is the day we can truly admit who we are now.
robdverity 09/10/2010 04:50 PM Report
Religions, ALL religions are nauseatingly fatuous (despite REM's eloquence to the contrary). Every religion requires an element of the real to be superseded by the surreal (I suppose that's the definition of faith), but it in reality is a demeaning of the human animal, of its human cognitive abilities. For example Christian's ascension into heaven (wherever that is) and Moslem's horse ride into not one but seven heavens is not only puerile but down right fatuous and totally demeaning. It's beyond stupid, it's APPLIED stupid. You have to practice - either weekly or five times a day (which is certain radicalization). An ugly form of egotistical 'specialness.' I'M SO SPECIAL THERE MUST BE A SUPREME (FATHER FIGURE) BEING THAT RECOGNIZES THAT AND WANTS TO PRESERVE MY VIRTUES AND INDIVIDUAL SPECIALNESS IN A VAULT OR PRESERVE TO BE LABELED AS HEAVEN. Like there's so much proof for such shallow BS.
As to Islam: too much to radicalize and blunt real thought. As mentioned five times a day of formally doing anything would parochialize/radicalize anyone, which shuts down any real pluralistic sentiments. Then throw in their hijabs and veils which emphasizes their desire to be a-part, different, NOTICED while hidden (more religious idiocy).
Religions will ultimately prevail (not win, prevail) as they will result in their self-fulfilling Armageddon of nuclear annihilation.
Lastly, religions part in 911 - the real impetus for all this discussion - was omitted: the US support for Israel. Further proof that religions ultimately will kill us, not enhance us. And has already started. Total the body count - both us and them. Then ask, "Does God/Allah give a damn?"
PEACE! SALAM! SHALOM! (Mere words, the more hollow with each successive use.)
NeilMacCallister 09/10/2010 04:08 PM Report
The thoughtful Mr. Ramadan presents himself here as but a simple Islamic intellectual on 'A Quest for Meaning'.
Mr. Rose joins that quest with his prompt of whether our current conflicts are actually a 'Clash of Civilizations', or more accurately just a "clash of perceptions".
***
Are the Iraq and Afghanistan wars just "perceptions"?
Were the World Trade Center deaths just a perception?
Is the Iranian theocracy's current race to get a nuclear bomb and at long last attempt its promised "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" just an issue of perception???
REMant 09/10/2010 01:55 PM Report
There's no doubt that Islam is as complex and multi-faceted as Christianity. But I don't think tho that mere tolerance is the answer, and from what he said, and the title of his book notwithstanding, he doesn't either. Nor is it a matter of culture. Rather it is a matter of growing up. It might be better if Muslims would agree to burn an equal number of Bibles and Jews an equal number of Torahs as Christians burn Qurans in a sort of religious disarmament. But characteristic of fundamentalists is that they presume they are doing God's will, defending His honor, His word, etc, so individualism is considered irrelevant, if not irreligious. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of God's sovereignty, indeed it is desirable, and necessary if we are ever going to get anywhere, as long as an equal consideration for the fallibility of those doing the interpreting of it is exhibited, but the religious rarely do, and therein lies the problem, for if you really believe in the absolute power of God you cannot also believe that prayers, buildings, images, revelations, rituals, and the like should have the slightest influence over Him, or even that He is a him. The evangelical sort believe they are the victim thus deserving of God's mercy, yet who can they be blaming, but, like Job, God, Himself? The more radical seem certain someone is out to get them. And what are most ppl who preach good works doing but acting as little gods in their own right? There are some of course who argue that if God is really sovereign there's no point in believing in anything, just as if God were presumed dead, but clearly those ppl, too, are only bemoaning their lack of control over the situation, while those who believe in culture or history are surely only engaging in skepticism, as well. To the extent you can consider nationalism or religion a matter of culture, Huntington has to be correct, but the underlying problem lies in religious personality and that is arguably the same everywhere, plus it has a long past, not just in Arab-European conflict, but in our own Reformation, English Civil War, Thirty Years' War, over the Papacy, even in the early Church. Indeed, there are not many conflicts which do not have a religious component. However, look into it and I think you'll see the issues are always the same. The point of the First Amendment, BTW, is not to to guarantee tolerance, nor certainly to prohibit religious expression, but to preclude theocracy, thereby using the state to enforce observance and opinion. And that ought to extend to foreign policy as well.
otiswhat 09/10/2010 01:23 PM Report
Last night's show with Tarig Ramadan was very good.
I still think most Muslims are stuck in the Dark Ages !