Judge Pirro

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Quran tells people to be peaceful.

*as long as they fully submit to Islam


Get that straight, people.

 

[bripat9643]

No she isn't.

Yes, she is. Of course I didn't expect you to either be honest, or understand her message.

No she isn't. Islam is opposed to every principle this nation is founded on. Practicing Islam means doing everything in your power to destroy the United States.

No Islam isn't. You can't understand how you are conflating Islam and radical Islam.

Sure it is. Just read the Q'uran.

No, it doesn't. The Quran tells people to be peaceful. It is when a leader declares a Jihad that people become violent.

You are fucking delusional.

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. (See also: Response to Apologists)


Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah'). (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"​

It goes on and on

 

[candycorn]

So does a secular religious studies course. But the Constitution is godless. And thank the gods for that.

Sure son, sure.

FFI is right.

Otherwise, show us where the Constitution addresses god, son.

"""The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian."""

Is America A Christian Nation?

You're living proof that people make assumptions based on rhetoric.
.
.

I am living proof that a good education is priceless.

I have always found the Left's need to "redefine" meanings and contexts a source of amusement.
IF the Constitution had been written a vacuum you might have a case.
Sadly for you and Gator it wasn't. It's context was the escape of the Colonists from the State Religion imposed by the King. There was no "Freedom of Religion" in the Kingdom. It was just the state church, the Anglican.
THAT is the context of the 1st Amendment. The genius of it is that they indeed were foresighted enough to include EVERYONE'S "Religion". Far from being godless, it protected everyone's "god".

You condescended to FFI, who stated a fact.
FFI was right. God is not in the Constitution.
Make up your mind, try to cover your ass, we don't give a flying fuck.

.
.
.

I owned him, he knows it, I know it.

Everything below is true.
I have always found the Left's need to "redefine" meanings and contexts a source of amusement.
IF the Constitution had been written a vacuum you might have a case.
Sadly for you and Gator it wasn't. It's context was the escape of the Colonists from the State Religion imposed by the King. There was no "Freedom of Religion" in the Kingdom. It was just the state church, the Anglican.
THAT is the context of the 1st Amendment. The genius of it is that they indeed were foresighted enough to include EVERYONE'S "Religion". Far from being godless, it protected everyone's "god".

Would Reagan be able to win the GOP nomination today? Likely not. Although he inspired generations of republicans…..
Sounds a lot like the right does a lot of re-defining too.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Would Reagan be able to win the GOP nomination today? Likely not.

Absolutely he would. Have you rechecked his beliefs lately? This is still the party of Reagan.

 

[candycorn]

Would Reagan be able to win the GOP nomination today? Likely not.

Absolutely he would. Have you rechecked his beliefs lately? This is still the party of Reagan.

With Reagan’s record, he couldn’t win the nomination. Reagan the candidate? Yes...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

With Reagan’s record, he couldn’t win the nomination.

With trump's record alone, he could not win the nomination. This is about candidate reagan, not electing reagan with the benefit of 8 years of his horseshit to consider.

 

[candycorn]

With Reagan’s record, he couldn’t win the nomination.

With trump's record alone, he could not win the nomination. This is about candidate reagan, not electing reagan with the benefit of 8 years of his horseshit to consider.

ok

 

[mudwhistle]

I stand with Judge Pirro, i believe a woman who wears a hijab shows she adheres to Sharia Law, which is against to our Constitution. And furthermore Omar’s antisemitism, to me, proves she’s a radical Sharia Islamist. Gox is wrong

How dare anyone have an opinion about Islamic Radicals.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

With Reagan’s record, he couldn’t win the nomination.

With trump's record alone, he could not win the nomination. This is about candidate reagan, not electing reagan with the benefit of 8 years of his horseshit to consider.

ok

Reagan invented the trump cult fetish of reverse racism. He attacked civil rights laws mercilessly. He coined 'welfare queen", and racialized the debate over welfare. yes, that old racist puke would fit right in.

 

[Frannie]

I stand with Judge Pirro, i believe a woman who wears a hijab shows she adheres to Sharia Law, which is against to our Constitution. And furthermore Omar’s antisemitism, to me, proves she’s a radical Sharia Islamist. Gox is wrong

How dare anyone have an opinion about Islamic Radicals.

There are no Islamic radicals there is just islam

 

[Rigby5]

Actually that is not true.
Muslims do not believe God controls government, but that God is ethical and government should try to be ethical also.
No one is forced to pray in Islam, but people want to in order to be better people.
The Quran says only to fight in defense, so Muslim are the least aggressive and most peaceful.
What people do not realize is that around 1200 AD or so, Asiatic Mongols, Moguls, and Turks defeated the Arab Muslims and took over. They are the ones known for attacking Europe, not Arab Muslims.
The whole point of Mohammad creating Islam was to improve the rights of women, as a favor to his wife. Before Islam, women were considered to not have souls, could not own property, could not divorce, could not inherit, etc. Mohammad fixed all that by reforming Judaism into Islam.

Suggested reading: Islam and women's rights.

The rigid laws of Islam have deprived half of the population of their basic human rights. The male is in charge of the female: Koran 4:34, and the subjugated half is led to believe, through Islamic teachings, that the supremacy of the man is the will of Allah, and it has been predestined for women to live as submissive, obedient wives.

Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible.
Male being in charge of female is from the Bible, and the Quran just does not alter that.
But after Mohammad, women at least had a soul, rights, could own property, inherit, divorce, etc.
Before the Quran they had no rights under the Old Testament, at all.

"Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible." So that is how Islam manages to maintain it's 7th Century charm. It is not rigid. Got it.

I said in comparison with the Old Testament, which says everything is to be taken literally and infallible.
The Quran pretty much says to use common sense, and almost always finishes with the statement that God is merciful, or something like that to help you understand the positive spin you are supposed to put on each verse.
It it not like the Old Testament where mostly you are just supposed to fear.

That's why they made the New Testament.

While what I read in the New Testament sounds pretty good in general, at the same time, it was also the New Testament that was used to justify Crusades, Inquisitions, Conquistadors, burning heritics/witches, slavery, shooting abortion doctors, etc. Even invading Iraq; we would never have done that kind of murder to a European country. So there seems to be something very wrong with how westerners interpret or follow the New Testament as well. What we do is much worse than what Muslims do.

 

[Rigby5]

Good as a former judge she should know better. The United States is based on the idea to have freedom to practice any religion. Part of Omar's religion is to wear a hijab. Pirro is fucking ignorant to tie wearing a hijab to radical Islamic activity.

No she isn't.

Yes, she is. Of course I didn't expect you to either be honest, or understand her message.

No she isn't. Islam is opposed to every principle this nation is founded on. Practicing Islam means doing everything in your power to destroy the United States.

Islam is based on the principles of the Quran, which clearly say to only use force if you absolutely have to in defense.
It says that even if they have attacked you twice, you can still try a third time to work out a peaceful agreement.
It is only after the 3rd attack that you no longer have any mercy.

{... “There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Holy Quran: 2/ 256) ...}

{... “God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just.” (Surat al-Mumtahana, 8) ...}

{... The word “Islam” is derived from the word meaning “peace” in Arabic. ...}

 

[Frannie]

Suggested reading: Islam and women's rights.

The rigid laws of Islam have deprived half of the population of their basic human rights. The male is in charge of the female: Koran 4:34, and the subjugated half is led to believe, through Islamic teachings, that the supremacy of the man is the will of Allah, and it has been predestined for women to live as submissive, obedient wives.

Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible.
Male being in charge of female is from the Bible, and the Quran just does not alter that.
But after Mohammad, women at least had a soul, rights, could own property, inherit, divorce, etc.
Before the Quran they had no rights under the Old Testament, at all.

"Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible." So that is how Islam manages to maintain it's 7th Century charm. It is not rigid. Got it.

I said in comparison with the Old Testament, which says everything is to be taken literally and infallible.
The Quran pretty much says to use common sense, and almost always finishes with the statement that God is merciful, or something like that to help you understand the positive spin you are supposed to put on each verse.
It it not like the Old Testament where mostly you are just supposed to fear.

That's why they made the New Testament.

While what I read in the New Testament sounds pretty good in general, at the same time, it was also the New Testament that was used to justify Crusades, Inquisitions, Conquistadors, burning heritics/witches, slavery, shooting abortion doctors, etc. Even invading Iraq; we would never have done that kind of murder to a European country. So there seems to be something very wrong with how westerners interpret or follow the New Testament as well. What we do is much worse than what Muslims do.

Lol can I cut off your nose for demeaning Jesus, hold still now, fool

Woman with nose cut off - Bing images

 

[Rigby5]

I stand with Judge Pirro, i believe a woman who wears a hijab shows she adheres to Sharia Law, which is against to our Constitution. And furthermore Omar’s antisemitism, to me, proves she’s a radical Sharia Islamist. Gox is wrong

How dare anyone have an opinion about Islamic Radicals.

There are no Islamic radicals there is just islam

There is a sort of Islamic radical.
In order to fight western imperialism and colonialism in the Mideast, the Islamic Brotherhood tried to unify Arabs by using Islam.
That is a worthy cause, but it does end up someone slanting the original intents and purposes of Islam.

 

[Frannie]

I stand with Judge Pirro, i believe a woman who wears a hijab shows she adheres to Sharia Law, which is against to our Constitution. And furthermore Omar’s antisemitism, to me, proves she’s a radical Sharia Islamist. Gox is wrong

How dare anyone have an opinion about Islamic Radicals.

There are no Islamic radicals there is just islam

There is a sort of Islamic radical.
In order to fight western imperialism and colonialism in the Mideast, the Islamic Brotherhood tried to unify Arabs by using Islam.
That is a worthy cause, but it does end up someone slanting the original intents and purposes of Islam.

Nope. This is done by traditional Islam to please mohfuckmed
https://www.pajhwok.com/sites/pajhw.../1/24159587090_3aff9becb8_z.jpg?itok=TbKzyzlj

 

[bripat9643]

Good as a former judge she should know better. The United States is based on the idea to have freedom to practice any religion. Part of Omar's religion is to wear a hijab. Pirro is fucking ignorant to tie wearing a hijab to radical Islamic activity.

No she isn't.

Yes, she is. Of course I didn't expect you to either be honest, or understand her message.

No she isn't. Islam is opposed to every principle this nation is founded on. Practicing Islam means doing everything in your power to destroy the United States.

Islam is based on the principles of the Quran, which clearly say to only use force if you absolutely have to in defense.

Dead wrong.

It says that even if they have attacked you twice, you can still try a third time to work out a peaceful agreement.
It is only after the 3rd attack that you no longer have any mercy.

It tells Muslims to wage war against the infidel. It says it over and over and over.

{... “There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Holy Quran: 2/ 256) ...}

{... “God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just.” (Surat al-Mumtahana, 8) ...}

{... The word “Islam” is derived from the word meaning “peace” in Arabic. ...}

The "peace" of Islam means the peace of submission. There is no peace for those who refuse to submit.

Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "heals" the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has instructed them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths. (See also: Response to Apologists)

 

[Rigby5]

Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible.
Male being in charge of female is from the Bible, and the Quran just does not alter that.
But after Mohammad, women at least had a soul, rights, could own property, inherit, divorce, etc.
Before the Quran they had no rights under the Old Testament, at all.

"Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible." So that is how Islam manages to maintain it's 7th Century charm. It is not rigid. Got it.

I said in comparison with the Old Testament, which says everything is to be taken literally and infallible.
The Quran pretty much says to use common sense, and almost always finishes with the statement that God is merciful, or something like that to help you understand the positive spin you are supposed to put on each verse.
It it not like the Old Testament where mostly you are just supposed to fear.

That's why they made the New Testament.

While what I read in the New Testament sounds pretty good in general, at the same time, it was also the New Testament that was used to justify Crusades, Inquisitions, Conquistadors, burning heritics/witches, slavery, shooting abortion doctors, etc. Even invading Iraq; we would never have done that kind of murder to a European country. So there seems to be something very wrong with how westerners interpret or follow the New Testament as well. What we do is much worse than what Muslims do.

Lol can I cut off your nose for demeaning Jesus, hold still now, fool

Woman with nose cut off - Bing images

First of all, Islam does not at all support or allow mutilation or harming anyone except in defense..
Second is that Christians do kill those who say anything bad about Jesus, even though there is no harm done by being critical of Jesus.
However, those attacking Mohammad are not just being critical, but deliberately attempting to incite hate speech against all Muslims with the intent of whipping up murders. So that is a crime that has to be punished.

 

[Rigby5]

I stand with Judge Pirro, i believe a woman who wears a hijab shows she adheres to Sharia Law, which is against to our Constitution. And furthermore Omar’s antisemitism, to me, proves she’s a radical Sharia Islamist. Gox is wrong

How dare anyone have an opinion about Islamic Radicals.

There are no Islamic radicals there is just islam

There is a sort of Islamic radical.
In order to fight western imperialism and colonialism in the Mideast, the Islamic Brotherhood tried to unify Arabs by using Islam.
That is a worthy cause, but it does end up someone slanting the original intents and purposes of Islam.

Nope. This is done by traditional Islam to please mohfuckmed
https://www.pajhwok.com/sites/pajhw.../1/24159587090_3aff9becb8_z.jpg?itok=TbKzyzlj

That is crazy and had nothing at all do to with religion. That was a guy pissed about being jilted. Not at all supported by Islam.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Islam is based on the principles of the Quran,

And on the hadiths. In fact, much of the dominant forms of sharia law is derived directly from them. You keep saying things that are ass backwards wrong.

 

[Frannie]

"Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible." So that is how Islam manages to maintain it's 7th Century charm. It is not rigid. Got it.

I said in comparison with the Old Testament, which says everything is to be taken literally and infallible.
The Quran pretty much says to use common sense, and almost always finishes with the statement that God is merciful, or something like that to help you understand the positive spin you are supposed to put on each verse.
It it not like the Old Testament where mostly you are just supposed to fear.

That's why they made the New Testament.

While what I read in the New Testament sounds pretty good in general, at the same time, it was also the New Testament that was used to justify Crusades, Inquisitions, Conquistadors, burning heritics/witches, slavery, shooting abortion doctors, etc. Even invading Iraq; we would never have done that kind of murder to a European country. So there seems to be something very wrong with how westerners interpret or follow the New Testament as well. What we do is much worse than what Muslims do.

Lol can I cut off your nose for demeaning Jesus, hold still now, fool

Woman with nose cut off - Bing images

First of all, Islam does not at all support or allow mutilation or harming anyone except in defense..
Second is that Christians do kill those who say anything bad about Jesus, even though there is no harm done by being critical of Jesus.
However, those attacking Mohammad are not just being critical, but deliberately attempting to incite hate speech against all Muslims with the intent of whipping up murders. So that is a crime that has to be punished.

Lol a husband can cut off his wife's nose or her head for no reason.

You are a delusional demented fool in full denial, shit they throw gays off buildings and still stone lesbians. You can claim that the pictures are not real, but all you are doing is mocking yourself