What's up with controversy about Bob Bergdahl?

[Tropicana]

All news sources should be taken with a grain of salt. He clearly was not praying.

[RichD]

All news sources should be taken with a grain of salt. He clearly was not praying.

what he said was


'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful'.


that is being spun as being a common radical muslim victory "prayer"

just one of the spins to ramp up the controversy

[Tropicana]

You speak Arabic?

[Tropicana]

The Meaning of Ar-Rahman Ar-Rahim - the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim are two names derived from Ar-Rahmah (the mercy), but Rahman has more meanings that pertain to mercy than Ar-Rahim. There is a statement by Ibn Jarir that indicates that there is a consensus on this meaning. Further, Al-Qurtubi said, "The proof that these names are derived (from Ar-Rahmah), is what At-Tirmidhi recorded - and graded Sahih from `Abdur-Rahman bin `Awf that he heard the Messenger of Allah say, «قَالَ اللهُ تَعَالى: أَنَا الرَّحْمنُ خَلَقْتُ الرَّحِمَ وَشَقَقْتُ لَهَا اسْمًا مِنِ اسْمِي، فَمَنْ وَصَلَهَا وَصَلْتُهُ وَمَنْ قَطَعَها قَطَعْتُهُ» (Allah the Exalted said, 'I Am Ar-Rahman. I created the Raham (womb, i.e. family relations) and derived a name for it from My Name. Hence, whoever keeps it, I will keep ties to him, and whoever severs it, I will sever ties with him.') He then said, "This is a text that indicates the derivation.'' He then said, "The Arabs denied the name Ar-Rahman, because of their ignorance about Allah and His attributes.'' Al-Qurtubi said, "It was said that both Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim have the same meaning, such as the words Nadman and Nadim, as Abu `Ubayd has stated. Abu `Ali Al-Farisi said, `Ar-Rahman, which is exclusively for Allah, is a name that encompasses every type of mercy that Allah has. Ar-Rahim is what effects the believers, for Allah said, ﴿وَكَانَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَحِيماً﴾ (And He is ever Rahim (merciful) to the believers.)' (33:43) Also, Ibn `Abbas said - about Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim, `They are two soft names, one of them is softer than the other (meaning it carries more implications of mercy).''' Ibn Jarir said; As-Surri bin Yahya At-Tamimi narrated to me that `Uthman bin Zufar related that Al-`Azrami said about Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim, "He is Ar-Rahman with all creation and Ar-Rahim with the believers.'' Hence. Allah's statements, ﴿ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى عَلَى الْعَرْشِ الرَّحْمَـنُ﴾ (Then He rose over (Istawa) the Throne (in a manner that suits His majesty), Ar-Rahman) (25:59),) and, ﴿الرَّحْمَـنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى ﴾ (Ar-Rahman (Allah) rose over (Istawa) the (Mighty) Throne (in a manner that suits His majesty).) (20:5) Allah thus mentioned the Istawa - rising over the Throne - along with His Name Ar-Rahman, to indicate that His mercy encompasses all of His creation. Allah also said, ﴿وَكَانَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَحِيماً﴾ (And He is ever Rahim (merciful) to the believers), thus encompassing the believers with His Name Ar-Rahim. They said, "This testifies to the fact that Ar-Rahman carries a broader scope of meanings pertaining to the mercy of Allah with His creation in both lives. Meanwhile, Ar-Rahim is exclusively for the believers.'' Yet, we should mention that there is a supplication that reads, «رَحْمنَ الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَرَحِيمَهُمَا» (The Rahman and the Rahim of this life and the Hereafter) Allah's Name Ar-Rahman is exclusively His. For instance, Allah said, ﴿قُلِ ادْعُواْ اللَّهَ أَوِ ادْعُواْ الرَّحْمَـنَ أَيًّا مَّا تَدْعُواْ فَلَهُ الاٌّسْمَآءَ الْحُسْنَى﴾ (Say (O Muhammad ): "Invoke Allah or invoke Ar-Rahman (Allah), by whatever name you invoke Him (it is the same), for to Him belong the Best Names) (17:110),) and, ﴿وَاسْئلْ مَنْ أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رُّسُلِنَآ أَجَعَلْنَا مِن دُونِ الرَّحْمَـنِ ءَالِهَةً يُعْبَدُونَ ﴾ (And ask (O Muhammad ) those of Our Messengers whom We sent before you: "Did We ever appoint alihah (gods) to be worshipped besides Ar-Rahman (Most Gracious, Allah)'') (43:45). Further, when Musaylimah the Liar called himself the Rahman of Yamamah, Allah made him known by the name `Liar' and exposed him. Hence, whenever Musaylimah is mentioned, he is described as `the Liar'. He became an example for lying among the residents of the cities and villages and the residents of the deserts, the bedouins. Therefore, Allah first mentioned His Name - Allah - that is exclusively His and described this Name by Ar-Rahman, which no one else is allowed to use, just as Allah said, ﴿قُلِ ادْعُواْ اللَّهَ أَوِ ادْعُواْ الرَّحْمَـنَ أَيًّا مَّا تَدْعُواْ فَلَهُ الاٌّسْمَآءَ الْحُسْنَى﴾ (Say (O Muhammad ): "Invoke Allah or invoke Ar-Rahman (Allah), by whatever name you invoke Him (it is the same), for to Him belong the Best Names.'') (17:110) Only Musaylimah and those who followed his misguided ways described Musaylimah by Ar-Rahman. As for Allah's Name Ar-Rahim, Allah has described others by it. For instance, Allah said, ﴿لَقَدْ جَآءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ عَزِيزٌ عَلَيْهِ مَا عَنِتُّمْ حَرِيصٌ عَلَيْكُمْ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَءُوفٌ رَّحِيمٌ ﴾ (Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger (Muhammad ) from amongst yourselves (i.e. whom you know well). It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. He (Muhammad ) is anxious over you (to be rightly guided) for the believers (he is) kind (full of pity), and Rahim (merciful)) (9:128). Allah has also described some of His creation using some of His other Names. For instance, Allah said, ﴿إِنَّا خَلَقْنَا الإِنسَـنَ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ نَّبْتَلِيهِ فَجَعَلْنَـهُ سَمِيعاً بَصِيراً ﴾ (Verily, We have created man from Nutfah (drops) of mixed semen (sexual discharge of man and woman), in order to try him, so We made him hearer (Sami`) and seer (Basir) (76:2). In conclusion, there are several of Allah's Names that are used as names for others besides Allah. Further, some of Allah's Names are exclusive for Allah alone, such as Allah, Ar-Rahman, Al-Khaliq (the Creator), Ar-Raziq (the Sustainer), and so forth. Hence, Allah started the Tasmiyah (meaning, `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious Most Merciful') with His Name, Allah, and described Himself as Ar-Rahman, (Most Gracious) which is softer and more general than Ar-Rahim. The most honorable Names are mentioned first, just as Allah did here. A Hadith narrated by Umm Salamah stated that the recitation of the Messenger of Allah was slow and clear, letter by letter, ﴿بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَـنِ الرَّحِيمِ - الْحَمْدُ للَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَـلَمِينَ - الرَّحْمَـنِ الرَّحِيمِ - مَـلِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ ﴾ (In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All the praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of all that exists. The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. The Owner of the Day of Recompense) (1:1-4). And this is how a group of scholars recite it. Others connected the recitation of the Tasmiyah to Al-Hamd. ﴿الْحَمْدُ للَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَـلَمِينَ ﴾ (2. Al-Hamd be to Allah, the Lord of all that exists.)

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=35

[RichD]

You speak Arabic?

my cousin does

[Tropicana]

...and did he or she say this is a jihadists prayer of victory.

I don't believe you about your cousin for one second.

[RichD]

certain media outlets are trying to convince their viewers that this is the case.

Hannity Wants You To Think Bergdahl’s Father Gave ‘Muslim Victory Call’ At The White House

POSTED BY ELLEN -1438.40PC ON JUNE 04, 2014 · FLAG


The latest example of Sean Hannity’s extremism was on view tonight as he hosted two Islamophobes to blow the "secret Muslim" dog whistle “analyze” the comments of Bowe Bergdahl’s father in the Rose Garden last weekend, spoken in Pashto, in response to the news that his son had been freed. “Great American” Hannity used the segment to further his smear of the soldier and his family with the obviously ultimate goal of using them against President Obama.
Hannity announced at the beginning of the discussion that Bergdahl’s words translated to, “In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate.” Oh noes! Hannity also sneered that Bergdahl had grown a beard, then played a clip of the father sending a message in Arabic or Pashto to his son’s Taliban captors in 2011. However, Hannity generously forgave Bergdahl those earlier words because his son was still captive.
Hannity’s two guests were reliable Fox News Islamophobes: Brigitte Gabriel and Zuhdi Jasser.
“So exactly what message was he trying to send?” Hannity asked Gabriel sinisterly. Then before she could answer, Hannity quoted another fave Islamophobe, Walid Shoebat. “What that father was saying in the Rose Garden - …Walid is suggesting he was declaring the Muslim victory call and then the president smiles when he does it, as soon as he hears. He (Shoebat) calls it the ‘war cry of Allah.’ Is that what that is, when he said that?”
“It is the war cry of Allah,” Gabriel agreed. She claimed Bergdahl didn’t know what he was saying but, she added, “throughout history, the Islamic history of 1400 years, every time Muslims conquered a place or a location, they would stand and… (declare) the greatness of Allah over that land.” According to Gabriel, “The Talibans and the Islamist radicals all throughout the world will perceive as a victory and a success over Allah, standing on the steps of the White House.”
That seemed to be too much for even the virulently anti-Islamic and right-wing Jasser. “I’m Muslim and I say that 30, 40 times a day in my prayers,” Jasser said. However, he also said he believes “Private” Bergdahl (who has been promoted in absentia by the Army to the rank of sergeant) “should be tried for treason.”
Jasser hypothesized, “Ultimately, his father probably radicalized him. No different than the mother of the Boston bomber radicalized her son.” Not that Jasser offered a shred of evidence. Nor was he asked for any.
But Hannity seemed determined to promote the “war cry” meme. “Is it used by the radical Islamists as their war cry of Allah and do you think that the father is radicalized?” Hannity asked Gabriel.
“Osama bin Laden and the other radicals who pray in the name of Allah say the same exact prayers.” Gabriel assured him. Although she effusively praised Jasser’s patriotism, she pointedly cautioned, “The radicals who say the same prayers look at the religion itself very differently than Zuhdi does."
Of course, it’s quite possible – if not probable – that the father said the prayer in the same pro-American spirit. But Hannity was too eager to promote the other possibility to consider that. “And you think the father interpreted it that way and purposely said that in the Rose Garden and it was sending a message and the president – you could see the president smiling there as he says it,” Hannity prompted. Agan.
No, Gabrielle thought the father was saying words “he really did not understand, their ramification and the meaning behind these words and how the enemy will perceive these words.”
So, in the end, it was only Hannity promoting this “Muslim victory call makes President Obama smile” smear.
Watch Hannity repeatedly suggest that President Obama approved of the "Muslim victory call" below.




Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/hannity_wan...I8spGCMkUsA.99

[Tropicana]

I know I have read and heard this garbage too.

[RichD]

here some funny commentary yesterday. one of these talking heads is going on how there 5 guys are al queda leaders and will rejoin the fight and what a danger it poses to the US and how Obama is an idiot and incompetent. then in the next breath he is talking about how Obama killing the al queada leaders is meaningless because as soon as that are gone they are replaced ...

[lonewolf]

here some funny commentary yesterday. one of these talking heads is going on how there 5 guys are al queda leaders and will rejoin the fight and what a danger it poses to the US and how Obama is an idiot and incompetent. then in the next breath he is talking about how Obama killing the al queada leaders is meaningless because as soon as that are gone they are replaced ...

Idiot? No. Incompetent? Let's just say he should start firing some of his advisors. His decision making as of late has not been very good, or maybe it is the explanation of his moves that hasn't been very convincing...he needs to convince the American people and the world that he has made the right choices...He supposed to be the leader of the free world...I don't think anyone takes him serious.

Rich, there is heavy bipartisan criticism for the swap of Bergdahl. It would be one thing if it was just criticism by the Repugnants...its not.

[RichD]

Rich, there is heavy bipartisan criticism for the swap of Bergdahl. It would be one thing if it was just criticism by the Repugnants...its not.

yes i hear all kinds of political types commenting. I'm interested in the average person take. what are your reasons for opposing this move?

personally i think it was a good political move....i'm not buying that it materially affects the "war on terror" in any way if these guys are in or out.
if i was in Obama's position it suits me to have them out. i can "deal" with them much more easily if they are not in my custody.

[LinSkinny]

Speaking of incompetent...I get a call dis morning bout some survey.

Ooman tell me survey will take 10 minutes of my time. Normally I don't deal wid dem but whatever. She ask how I feel about the democratic party on a scale of 0-10. When I ansa 0, she tell me tank you fi your time.

Not dat I feel di other party doing any better.

[Tropicana]

here some funny commentary yesterday. one of these talking heads is going on how there 5 guys are al queda leaders and will rejoin the fight and what a danger it poses to the US and how Obama is an idiot and incompetent. then in the next breath he is talking about how Obama killing the al queada leaders is meaningless because as soon as that are gone they are replaced ...

Yup nothing like waving the al Qaeda flag to whip the public up into a frenzy.

[lonewolf]

yes i hear all kinds of political types commenting. I'm interested in the average person take. what are your reasons for opposing this move

First off, the US always took the stance that it won't deal with terrorists. It's a long held principle. (Regardless of how you, I or others may view them.)The US views them as terrorists. (not another country's military force) It's their rules that they are breaking, and this is what makes things confusing. Right or wrong... stand by your rules or simply change them...That's one of the reasons I don't like the move.

PS (I'm sure there are back door dealings with terrorist all the time. We just don't hear about it.)

Second, is it not a risk to show terrorist organizations all over the world that they can win concessions from US by kidnapping Americans? Not just American soldiers, but American citizens. I think this could change the game.


Third, why did he (we) pick such a controversial figure to swap? AND! Why five for one? Do the math...
Why did they not ask for the release of innocent Americans being held, such as Caitlin Coleman and her baby and her CANADIAN husband Joshua Boyle...or any other innocent people that were just doing charity work, and are being held captive just because they are westerners.

Fourth, if the prisoners that they asked for are not important(or a threat), why did they ask for them?

There ya go...that's my take. Just my opinion and questions I would like answered.

[Tropicana]

Exactly 1,809 days after he was captured by Taliban fighters who kept him in a metal cage for weeks and possibly months during nearly five years in captivity, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl returned to the United States early Friday to a homecoming void of any of his relatives and dampened by a swirling controversy over his capture and release.
Sergeant Bergdahl, 28, America’s lone prisoner of war in the 13-year conflict in Afghanistan, landed around 1:40 a.m. aboard a military transport plane at an airfield adjacent to Lackland Air Force Base and was escorted to nearby Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio.
“We exchanged salutes,” said Maj. Gen. Joseph P. DiSalvo, who is overseeing Sergeant Bergdahl’s recovery as the commanding general of United States Army South, which is based at Fort Sam Houston. “He appeared just like any sergeant would when they see a two-star general — a little bit nervous. But he looked good.”


Sergeant Bergdahl had been recuperating at a military hospital in Germany since he was released from Taliban captivity on May 31, in exchange for five Taliban detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. He arrived in Texas to begin the next stage of his recovery at Fort Sam Houston, where he will undergo therapy and counseling as part of what Army officials call a “reintegration process.”
Continue reading the main storyVideo



There was no timeline for that process, but it is likely to last weeks or longer. At a news conference at the base golf course on Friday, military officials involved in Sergeant Bergdahl’s treatment said he was in a hospital room at the Brooke Army Medical Center without access to television, part of the slow pace of reintroducing normal, stable routines and activities into his life. “Over all, we’re pleased with his physical state,” said Col. Ronald N. Wool, a military doctor overseeing Sergeant Bergdahl’s medical care.Sergeant Bergdahl walked into the hospital and has been eating, although he has started off with a bland diet. “Peanut butter is a favorite,” Colonel Wool said.
Even as Sergeant Bergdahl arrived, the Army set in motion an investigation into the circumstances of his disappearance from his outpost in June 2009. The Army has selected a two-star general with combat experience in Afghanistan to determine whether Sergeant Bergdahl violated rules by apparently walking off his post, said three Pentagon officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was pending.
The officials did not disclose the general’s name and said he did not serve in Afghanistan at the same time as Sergeant Bergdahl. The general is expected to receive initial briefings in Washington next week, and then assemble a small staff in San Antonio and begin regular debriefings of Sergeant Bergdahl, officials said.
Army officials have emphasized that the goal of reintegration was to help the sergeant resume a normal life with “minimal physical and emotional complications,” and the military’s handling of his arrival — quietly slipping him onto the base far from a cluster of TV cameras and reporters outside a main gate in the early-morning darkness — seemed intended to eliminate any complications.

His treatment at Brooke Army Medical Center is expected to end with a reunion with his parents, but so far, he has declined to have any direct communication with any family members, none of whom were in San Antonio, said military officials, who declined to elaborate about why Sergeant Bergdahl has not reached out to relatives.
The sergeant’s parents, Robert and Jani Bergdahl, of Hailey, Idaho, released a statement through the Idaho National Guard that said while they were “overjoyed” by their son’s return, they did not wish to make their travel plans public. “They ask for continued privacy as they concentrate on their son’s reintegration,” said Col. Tim Marsano of the Idaho National Guard.
At some point after midnight on June 30, 2009, Sergeant Bergdahl, then a private, walked off his remote combat outpost in eastern Afghanistan and was later seized by the Taliban, military officials have said. A classified military report completed two months after he left his unit concluded that he had most likely walked away of his own free will, but stopped short of saying there was solid evidence that he had intended to permanently desert, noting that he had wandered away from assigned areas before and returned, according to people briefed on the report.

President Obama’s decision to negotiate for his release in exchange for the Taliban detainees angered some members of Congress and others who equated the freeing of the Taliban detainees to bargaining with terrorists.
While medical officials in Germany have pressed Sergeant Bergdahl for details about his time in captivity to help begin repairing his medical and psychological wounds, these specialists did not focus on the critical questions about why he left his outpost and how he was captured.
Pentagon officials initially dismissed the idea of court-martialing Sergeant Bergdahl, citing his five years as a prisoner of war. But last week, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as top Army officials, said the military would determine whether Sergeant Bergdahl had broken any regulations when he left his post.
Army officials also are weighing whether Sergeant Bergdahl warrants extra back pay for the time he was held in captivity.
In San Antonio, Sergeant Bergdahl will begin the last of three phases of what the military calls post-captivity reintegration, including specific steps to overcome the coping strategies that a captive may have developed to handle the trauma of being imprisoned, isolated and degraded. The reintegration can involve hundreds of people, including family members, members of a freed prisoner’s former unit, doctors, lawyers and chaplains. The United States Army South at Fort Sam Houston has overseen the recuperation of several released American hostages since 2007, including defense contractors, civilians and soldiers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/us/bergdahl-returns-to-us-for-more-treatment.html