Is Islam a religion of peace?

Blackflag: I still don't get it. How do you determine authenticity, falsehood, and acceptance?
They just explained it.

Perhaps you can better explain why the writers of the NVT bible are the truth, and all the other bibles are a lie?
What's NVT? God only wrote one Bible. And again, they just explained it.

The criteria was this:
1) Was the book written by a prophet of God?
2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message?
3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction?
4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered?

And from this, we have the Bible. There's only one Bible. The other "bibles" don't fit the criteria above. Like for example, in the catholic bible. The apocrypha never belonged in the Bible. If it was added, that would put in contradictions in the Bible and pose all sorts of theological problems. So that's probably why God didn't add it in there.

I mean, that site admits to having both Protestants and Catholic ministers...
I would appreciate it if you would provide a source or URL.

Blackflag: Yes, I ignored your argument because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Arbitrarily claiming that it makes no sense is not a rebuttal.

My first theory is that this is just incomprehensible nonsense, which means I couldn't reply even if I wanted too.
If it's incomprehensible nonsense, then explain why.

The second possibility is that you just did a poor job explaining it, which means I can reply after you explain it in a way I can better understand.
No it's explained just fine.

Here is the argument:

The proof that the Bible is true is that if it wasn't true, then we couldn't prove that anything is true. See, our thinking is based on the laws of logic - the standard of reasoning. They are:
1. Law of Identity: A is A.
2. Law of Non-Contradiction: A cannot be A and non A at the same time in the same sense.
3. Law of Excluded Middle: A is either true or false; there is no middle position.

Now why are these laws true? Nobody questions that they are true (unless they're absolutely crazy), but not very many people stop to think why they are true.

Only the Christian can account for such laws of reasoning. We are to pattern our thoughts after God's thoughts. We are made in God's image (Genesis 1:26) so we can follow His example (Ephesians 5:1). Laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks so He as a result expects us to think like Him (in a limited way). The characteristics of logic and the characteristics of God are interestingly synonymous. Laws of logic are immaterial. God is immaterial (John 4:24). Laws of logic are self-consistent. So is God (2 Timothy 2:13). And all truth is in God (John 14:6; Colossians 2:3) so truth will not contradict itself. God always upholds the universe by His power (Hebrews 1:3), so we can expect that no contradiction will happen in the universe. Laws of logic are contingent upon the nature of God.They are the prerequisite for rational reasoning and rational reasoning would not be possible without the biblical God. Laws of logic only make sense in the Christian worldview. Every other worldview cannot possibly account for them. Take, for example, the Law of Non-Contradiction. Apart from the Bible, how could we know that contradictions are always false? Apart from the Bible, we could only say that they have been false in our experience. However, our experiences are limited; and nobody has experienced the future. So if somebody asserted that he discovered two contradictory claims that are true, the non-Christian has no basis for dismissing such an assertion. It is only within the Biblical worldview that we know for sure that contradictions cannot happen in reality. Only the Christian has the foundation for the law of Non-Contradiction; or any law of logic for that matter. Only the Bible can make sense of logic itself.

What's NVT? z
New Version Testament. It is the most popular modern protestant bible right now.

God only wrote one Bible
I wasn't aware God wrote the bible, but nonetheless, which bible, in specific, did he write?

I would appreciate it if you would provide a source or URL
http://www.gotquestions.org/about.html

Multi-denominational organization has multiple bibles

There's only one Bible.
Just felt like being repetitive, but what bible is that?

The other "bibles" don't fit the criteria above
Why not?

The apocrypha never belonged in the Bible
1) The Catholic bible does not contain apocrypha
2) Why not? Why does apocrypha not meet your standards to be placed in a book of early Christian writings?

Arbitrarily claiming that it makes no sense is not a rebuttal.
I know. When it makes sense I will provide a rebuttal.

If it's incomprehensible nonsense, then explain why.
That is kind of hard to do. I am confused on how you are getting from point A to point B. It seems like you are jumping premises and making assumptions to support your original basis.

Krazy, have you ever read the excluded 10 books found in the Catholic Bible? What about apocrypha?

You are claiming they are unworthy, so I am just curious to know if you had actually read them yourself, or if you are just taking someone elses word for it.

Blackflag: Wait a second.

The supreme court of the USA can say that any law of the US government is unconstitutional. Does that make them more powerful than the rest? No. In fact the ayatollah is more accountable, because every few years he can be removed if he no longer has a popular mandate. He also has no religious authority over any of the non-Islamic courts.

If you're saying Iran is killing/jailing minority groups arbitrarily, then you should say what kind of groups you're talking about. Assuming religious, I thought we just established Iran does not have a policy of killing religious minorities.

If you do think the killers are the Iranian government, then which branch? Are the people in question convicted in a court process (judicial) or are they beat up by some secret police / the military (executive) or is there some law that says these people should be killed (legislative). Any assumption you make, you need to reconcile that with the fact that Christianity is the fastest growing faith in Iran. It would need to be so underground for it not to be reported, and not bad enough for it to cause any significant numbers of missing persons. In fact, I don't think you could name me anybody in Iran who has been discriminated against because of their religion, other than by the theocratic court process.

North Korea has freedom FROM religion, not freedom to be religious. Iran has the freedom to practice any one of four religions, although three of those religions may not convert muslims to their faith. If you're saying Christians need to be underground in Iran like in North Korea, why do hundreds of thousands of people in Iran attend churches like this one:


I agree weapons for peace is a twisted philosophy. I just don't think Iran is alone in doing so. Other nations who regularly use the same justification are the USA, Israel, Saudi, and believe it or not New Zealand.

Courts exist to uphold religious laws in Iran. Since there are 4 recognized religions, there are 4 such goals, which are often in conflict. Look at how much Khamenei and Ahmadinejad were in opposition to each other to see what I mean when I say, the government as a whole of Iran doesn't always have exactly the same purposes. I mean, one could argue that the American courts are there to make sure all support the American revolution blah blah blah, but in general, the main purpose of their existence is to make sure people get a trial to see if they broke the American law. Similarly, in Iran the courts determine if someone has broken religious or legislative laws in Iran. I very much doubt the Jewish or Christian courts have any incentive to ensure everyone is Shia Islam.

I'm pretty sure the Ayatollah has no say in who is on the Assembly of Experts, that being a direct democratic decision for the people... although who may run as a candidate for that vote may be qualified by the Guardian Council, who are selected by the supreme leader. So I'm not sure where this 50% figure comes from, and it gives me the impression you don't really understand Iranian politics. Really there are a lot of checks and balances here.

The present Ayatollah is the same one who has repeatedly issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. He could certainly be more radical if that's what you're saying! Again I'm not sure where your 75% comes from, as outside of the judiciary I'm pretty sure Iran is a democracy.

The supreme court of the USA can say that any law of the US government is unconstitutional
Not any law. Any unconstitutional law.

No. In fact the ayatollah is more accountable, because every few years he can be removed if he no longer has a popular mandate.
I don't think you realize that by principal of Shia governance, the usual suspects will always hold the position of supreme leader. There are also dozens of protections on place to ever prevent a power change counter to the Iranian Revolution.

If you're saying Iran is killing/jailing minority groups arbitrarily, then you should say what kind of groups you're talking about
The big four are Kurds, Bahai, Azeri, and Takiji. If a Jew was ever dumb enough to live in Iran, he would be lynched within a week.

If you do think the killers are the Iranian government, then which branch?
The positions of power straight to the military. State persecution is organized.

Any assumption you make, you need to reconcile that with the fact that Christianity is the fastest growing faith in Iran
Well according to the last census, 99% of Iranians are Muslim. Your point is irrelevant.

In fact, I don't think you could name me anybody in Iran who has been discriminated against because of their religion, other than by the theocratic court process.
I have six reports on hand from six different international human rights organizations. Which and how many do you want?

North Korea has freedom FROM religion
No, incorrect.

In the constitution written by Kim Jung Sung, the state of North Korea guarantees freedom of religion. Nowhere in the North Korean Constitution is freedom from religion guaranteed.

Iran has the freedom to practice any one of four religions, although three of those religions may not convert muslims to their faith
Another example of population control and state persecution

why do hundreds of thousands of people in Iran attend churches like this one

A picture of an abandoned monastery in territory seized by Iran containing ethnic Azeri? Shocker!

Since there are 4 recognized religions, there are 4 such goals, which are often in conflict
They aren't in conflict. Iranian courts are Islamic law. Islamic law is used to make sure everyone living in Iran adheres to Islam. Oh sweet liberty!

I'm pretty sure the Ayatollah has no say in who is on the Assembly of Experts
But he does. He puts into power three of the seven people who elect him

As one of the twelve clerics, he is one out of about two people who actually stand a remote chance of taking power.

Blackflag: Yes but the supreme court has already established that the US constitution should be interpreted as a living document, such that its meaning can adapt with time. As such what constitutes an "unconstitutional law" is entirely up to the interpretation of the court of the day.

I agree there are dozens of protections in place in Iran to prevent a counter-revolution to the Iranian Revolution or something. Same is true of most countries that desire stability. It would be hard to start a second American Revolution in the present USA for example. I also agree that by the principal of Shia governance, the usual suspects will hold positions of power in the Shia part of the government, which applies principally to the theological grounding of the judicial branch of the Iranian government. And look, I'm not defending that, I'm just saying you have to see that in a limited way, not that all Iranians think atheists should die or something. I mean, just look at how many Iranian atheists there are according to the latest semi-anonymous Atheist Census.

There are 10,000 Jews in Iran (officially 8,756 in the last census, although NGOs estimate the true number to be around 25,000). None are being lynched, and indeed, Judaism has been in Iran since ancient times.

Positions of power is a meaningless phrase when it comes to government. What sort of power? Where are you even getting this stuff from?

You claim "99% of Iranians are Muslim" in the "last census". Some points here. First, there were only 4 options on that census for religion, since the government only recognizes 4 religions as being legal to practice (Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism being the others). I mean, heck, China only allows 5 religions. Second, Iran is huge. There may be a 99% majority, but that just-over 1% encompasses hundreds of thousands of people, who all have special protections under the law. Many countries have huge Christian majorities and yet have few problems with discrimination. The Christian community is active in Iran and growing, not small underground and persecuted.

I want all 6 reports please. Why not humor me.

In Iran the Islamic courts have jurisdiction over conflict of laws provisions. So when two legal systems are necessarily in conflict, such as a civil suit, the Islamic courts will be the ones making the decision (assuming at least one of the parties is Islamic). Similarly in a criminal suit where somebody is accused of evangelizing as muslim, the government is said to be acting on behalf of the Islamic faith itself, and since this would conflict with the Christian faith of those courts, the Islamic legal system has absolute jurisdiction. The same must be true of any nation that has competing legal systems - many nations, for example, have both secular and religious courts that can usually be chosen between, but where those courts would introduce a conflict, the law must resolve that ambiguity. It's not population control or state persecution to say which of 2 legal systems prevails in a conflict, because the alternative would be to allow minorities to get away with any crime within a theological court process, or else to not recognize their theology at all, both of which are worse.

Not all Iranian courts follow Islamic law, as I've said many times. Nor is their primary function to ensure everyone is Islamic. In fact I don't think anyone has been convicted of a crime against Islam since that time 4 years ago or so when someone proclaimed themselves to be god and, apparently, gained a single follower. I could be wrong about that, but I am 100% sure that more people are convicted of drug offences every year in Iran, or of belonging to the Taliban, or any other relatively minor crime you can think of, than crimes against Islam.

You say "He puts into power three of the seven people who elect him"... Actually the committee to elect him has over 90 members. But even so I'm not sure where you get your figure of 3 from.

He is, of course, the only person with a chance of taking power since the Guardian Council is extremely conservative. But he can certainly lose power by making the wrong moves.

There are 10,000 Jews in Iran (officially 8,756 in the last census, although NGOs estimate the true number to be around 25,000). None are being lynched, and indeed, Judaism has been in Iran since ancient times.
What's all this "Death to Jews! Death to America!" propaganda that the Ayatollah was shouting about?

I want all 6 reports please
Asking for six at once is to much. I can give you one per post.

Let's start with the UN report, and then we will go to HGO after this.

http://shaheedoniran.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/A-HRC-25-61-updated.pdf

(Read Section V.)

The Christian community is active in Iran and growing, not small underground and persecuted.
Its actually not growing, it is falling. Ironically the one location it is growing is in Kurdistan and South Azerbaijan, a few of Iran's colonies.

There may be a 99% majority

My point being that Iran has a good lack of religious plurality. We have the Theocratic Fascists to thank for that.

. Similarly in a criminal suit where somebody is accused of evangelizing as muslim, the government is said to be acting on behalf of the Islamic faith itself, and since this would conflict with the Christian faith of those courts, the Islamic legal system has absolute jurisdiction
This I know isn't true. People of all religions are tried in Islamic courts, and subjected to Islamic Sharia law. It will say this in all of the six reports I will end up showing you.

Nor is their primary function to ensure everyone is Islamic
Why would an Islamic court exist, if not to ensure that every Iranian slave is being a good Muslim?

He is, of course, the only person with a chance of taking power since the Guardian Council is extremely conservative. But he can certainly lose power by making the wrong moves.
Yes, he could lose power to the one other guy who is among the living twelve clerics in Iran.

Blackflag: What's all this "Death to Jews! Death to America!" propaganda that the Ayatollah was shouting about?
The only place I've heard that fearmongering is in American media. In interviews and such, both the Iranian president and the ayatollah have always spoken very highly of America, in particular their economic power, while being skeptical of America's foreign policy.

(Read Section V.)
Section V does not mention religion ONCE.

Its actually not growing, it is falling.
Each of the last 3 censuses in Iran has shown a clear exponential growth in the number of Christians. Where is your evidence that it is falling?

We have the Theocratic Fascists to thank for that.
I think you'll find it's been this way since the middle ages. It has nothing to do with the present post-revolutionary Iran.

It will say this in all of the six reports I will end up showing you.
If Iran followed Sharia, it would not have an appeals system. Your source mentions an application of sharia once in passing, but that was (and this is not mentioned in the report, conveniently) also ratified by parliament in a codified law. It is true that much - indeed almost all - of the law enacted by parliament (which all of the theological judiciary must follow) is based on the prevailing interpretation of Sharia, but then to quote Iran's ex-health minister, "Islam is a flexible religion", and honestly the Iranian government has frequently enacted contradictory legislation that has been universally enforced by all four judiciaries. That doesn't mean the courts are Islamic, just that they are following civil law which happens to be the same as mainstream interpretations of Sharia in many cases.

Why would an Islamic court exist, if not to ensure that every Iranian slave is being a good Muslim?
For the same reason any court exists - to determine facts of cases, and to punish people who do things the state perceives to be wrong.

The only place I've heard that fearmongering is in American media
You only see what you want to see, because you are a mindless puppet who is going to fade out of existence like the rest of your kind, selectively choosing to accept whatever bullshit bigger people than you decide to spoonfeed you

Section V does not mention religion ONCE
It first categorizes Bahai, Christians, Kurds, and other minorities as "people derived of liberties." Everything in that section is explaining the treatment of these minority groups.
50% of prison cells are reserved for 1% of the population. Open your eyes and stop being a naive toddler.

Here is my second report from the Bahai Association of the University of Georgia. They have about a dozen documents regarding their treatment in Iran. They also commonly demonstrate outside the Iranian consulate in Washington D.C

http://bahai.uga.edu/Iran/073098.html

For the same reason any court exists - to determine facts of cases, and to punish people who do things the state perceives to be wrong
Oh, so this is about morality, huh? Making sure everyone is perfect, with no room for mistakes? God, just shoot me! Moralism IS one of the most twisted and evil philosophies ever invented.

If Iran followed Sharia, it would not have an appeals system
Judicial checks and balances make the system more efficient, but do nothing about the actual laws.

If you have anal sex with your wife, they are going to stone you. What a bunch of barbarians!

Blackflag: I make my own judgments, thank you very much. The fact that I'm enough of a critical thinker to reject your viewpoints here should be enough to prove this belief.

I completely agree that the Baha'i are actively discriminated against in Iran, and that Iran quite openly wants them gone. The same is not so true of Christians.

When people make a mistake, it is only right that they accept the consequences of that mistake. However, one of the great things not so much about judiciaries but about governments in general is that they can help people manage those consequences.

Blackflag: I'm not sure where you are getting your sources from. It is universally accepted that there is one Bible with 66 books. Sources include biblegateway.com, bible.com, and biblehub.com.

http://www.gotquestions.org/about.html
Multi-denominational organization has multiple bibles


I'm not sure what your're talking about; they clearly say on their "about us" page:
We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational.
They say "non-denominational" not multi-denominational. And even if they were, I'm not sure how that would prove that they have Catholic ministers, like you said.

I make my own judgments, thank you very much. The fact that I'm enough of a critical thinker to reject your viewpoints here should be enough to prove this belief
I regret being so blunt, but that was what was on the top of my head at the moment.

The truth is that you are not actually a critical thinker. Everything you believe is a collection of viewpoints that were hand packaged by political leaders. Deviating by believing in drug control does not absolve you of the fact that you are a mindless puppet.

I completely agree that the Baha'i are actively discriminated against in Iran, and that Iran quite openly wants them gone. The same is not so true of Christians
Really? You don't think a Shiite theocracy wants religious plurality? No, that is naive. If they wanted religious plurality, they would not be a goddamn theocracy.

The fact that the distribution of bibles is state controlled, and Christians are banned from attempting to convert Muslims, is the first sign that Iran does not want Christians. They only want enough to trick the mindless puppet hordes into thinking they are a modern democracy.

Here is my third link from the French Federation for the Human Rights of Man. I thought this one was a really intresting read to be honest. It shows that the spiritual leader has the power of a dictator, and the guardian council an oligarchy.

https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ir0108a.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just wondering, but you did know that the Iranian Republic was formed out of pressure from the US in exchange for lifting the first embargo, right? I think that proves Iranians are only doing the bare minimum to convince people into perceiving them as a constitutional republic.

It is universally accepted that there is one Bible with 66 books
WHAT!?!?

The Jewish Torah has a total of 24 books, and there are 27 books in the new testament (which is exactly the same for all sects)

That adds up to 51 books, which is the amount contained in the Orthodox bible. I am assuming you added in the 15 books of apocrypha, which is how you reached 66 books. I thought you said apocrypha and the extra books found within the Catholic and Orthodox bibles were not true.

Blackflag: I deviate with a lot of liberal leaders and their positions. Heck, I cannot think of another major liberal leader in the world today who argues nations ought to abolish their militaries. Not even the Dalai Lama defends that position.

There's a difference between tolerating particular protected religions, and wanting a multireligious state. Generally religions tend to believe they are right, so they will want to convert other religions... this is true also of theocratic government. But this need not always happen through force. Indeed in Islam, the Qu'ran gives special status to Christians as "people of the book", and this is reflected also in the theocratic Iranian legal system.

The legislature is fairly democratic. Put it this way - compare Iran with any of its neighbours, and I'd say Iran is certainly the most democratic overall. Indeed, with the possible exception of Israel, Iran is probably the most democratic state in the middle east. Compare Iran and Jordan for instance... Jordan, a country that persecutes Palestinians worse than Israel, and which openly discriminates against virtually all religious and ethnic minorities. Where the Christian church is growing and flourishing in Iran, in Jordan the opposite is the case. Again, the same is true of any of the other countries around there. Of course Iran is FAR from a perfect democracy, or even a modern democracy. But they are also not a dictatorship.

Your 2003 (!) report does not mention a single instance of discrimination against any of the 4 recognized religions. It states, correctly, that these 4 religions are given special protections under the constitution. It then asserts, with no basis whatsoever, that nonetheless this rule is not enforced. If they had facts for the claim, they would have presented them, as they did for the Baha'i faith.

I don't generally allow the origin of a country to determine my impression of it. New Zealand is awesome but, like all countries, we've had our dark periods.

I cannot think of another major liberal leader in the world today who argues nations ought to abolish their militaries
I can think of a lot, but they are not in charge. Military abolition isn't radical today, but it is still unpopular with the majority of people.

The legislature is fairly democratic. Put it this way - compare Iran with any of its neighbours, and I'd say Iran is certainly the most democratic overal
It isn't democracy if the system only allows people who support the status quo to have any power.

Put it this way - compare Iran with any of its neighbours, and I'd say Iran is certainly the most democratic overall
Turkey, Afghanistan, Armenia, and Azerbaijan all border Iran and are way more democratic. I know you have a problem with Azerbaijan, but they are not a theocracy and have a good human rights record.

Jordan, a country that persecutes Palestinians worse than Israel, and which openly discriminates against virtually all religious and ethnic minorities
You are entitled to your opinions, but the facts are that Jordan has a better human rights record than Iran and a higher standard of living. Contrary to your claim, they are also the most vocal advocates of Palestinian independence, and their state motto is not "Death to Israel!"

Your 2003 (!) report does not mention a single instance of discrimination against any of the 4 recognized religions
It uses the terms non-muslims and religious minorities, which clearly refer to people who are not muslims and religious minorities.

It also provides dozens of examples of how the constitution promotes an active policy of intolerance towards other religions. Did you read some of the twisted shit it mentioned in that article? How can you defend such barbarity?

Blackflag: America doesn't allow people who don't pledge allegiance to the USA to be president either. Doesn't prevent it from being democratic in its own way. Same with Iran. If you're not pro-Iran, Iran won't allow you to take power.

Azerbaijan has a TERRIBLE human rights record, as does Turkey and Armenia. Afghanistan is a state in concept only really, all of the elections since the removal of the Taliban from power have been fraught with issues. Having a theocratic government does not prevent that government from being democratic - in fact, Islamic law does not support democracy at all, so Iran specifically deviates from Islam in the legislature by holding fair elections. International observers have not really been showing any corruption in the electoral process or anything.

"higher standard of living" for whom, and how do you measure it?
The state motto of Iran is also not "death to Israel"
Freedom House, who are usually anti-Iran, ranks Jordan below Iran on all measures of civil liberties, freedoms and human rights in their latest report ( https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2015#.VeU3ffaqqko ). The UN and other bodies support this conclusion.
Jordan has killed more Palestinians than Israel has. They have repeatedly voted against hearing Palestinian resolutions in the UN, and refused talks with Palestinian leaders.
The most vocal advocates of Palestinian independence are Palestine themselves, followed closely by left-wing social justice types in liberal arts type universities.
THESE are the facts.

I did read the article. And I agreed about some of its claims, although it is downright lying about the electoral process for the Guardian Council, other than that I found it accurate. Maybe it has changed since 2003, I couldn't find historical sources to back up either way. But I could find no evidence that any Christian was discriminated against because of his religion in judicial procedure in that report, or that this is sanctioned by law. This is what you're trying to prove.

America doesn't allow people who don't pledge allegiance to the USA to be president either
Stop making things up.

The oath of allegiance is only a formality, not a constitutional requirement.

Azerbaijan has a TERRIBLE human rights record
If you are comparing Azerbaijan and Turkey to Iran, then they get an A+ in civility

Having a theocratic government does not prevent that government from being democratic
Yes it does. Shiites are voting for Shiite clerics and whomever the support. That system will never change because it is intertwined with religion.

Islamic law does not support democracy at all
Yes it does. Stop lying to people.

It is only Shiite countries like Iran who determine by religious law who is allowed to have power,

The state motto of Iran is also not "death to Israel"
So when 100% of the radical elements who helped take power, and are still in power today, say "death to israel," it would be unfair to call it an Iranian motto?

Freedom House, who are usually anti-Iran, ranks Jordan below Iran on all measures of civil liberties, freedoms and human rights in their latest report
First of all that is a group constantly lobbied by conservatives, but we'll discuss that some other time.

I looked at the site. It ranked Jordan as having a higher freedom score, a higher civil liberties score, and a 6 for political rights, which is on par with Iran. The good thing about Jordan is that its society is a whole lot less twisted and barbaric, and it allows more civil liberties and freedoms according to your own source.

The UN and other bodies support this conclusion
Source it. Your last source outright disagreed with you, so I am questioning any attempts to sly your way out of this by arguing from credentiality.

The most vocal advocates of Palestinian independence are Palestine themselves, followed closely by left-wing social justice types in liberal arts type universities
Yes, and there are more Jordanian patriots of Palestinian origin then anywhere else in the world.

although it is downright lying about the electoral process for the Guardian Council
Because you are right and FHIC is wrong?

Stop being full of yourself. Your ego is out of control. They were clearly speaking accurately about the Guardian Council, but since my source contradicted you, it becomes your duty to declare it false, like the good little ignorant puppet you are.

But I could find no evidence that any Christian was discriminated against because of his religion in judicial procedure in that report
Professional reports do not give specific charged stories. That is what civil news agencies and corporate journals do.

They provided plenty of backing that all minority groups are being persecuted, by having their rights limited as well as being disproportionately arrested by the judiciary system.

You still haven't justified how 1% of the population occupies 51% of the Iranian prison system.

Fourth Publication provides clear examples of discrimination to specific religious groups. Because you are caught up on specific stories, Georgetown conducted over a dozen interviews with Iranian Christians. You can also look up some other interviews on youtube if you are intrested in finding out the truth for a change.

http://journal.georgetown.edu/iran-vs-its-people-abuses-against-religious-minorities-by-katrina-lantos-swett/

Blackflag: Were you referring to this?

Based on numerous interviews with Iranian converts to Christianity, lawyers, activists, and journalists...

That's the only mention of any interviews your source has, I read the whole thing. Note that the one people they never asked was Iranian Christians. They asked specifically those people who had committed a crime, and those who support them. I also find it highly suspicious that it only extents to Protestants, when Protestantism is a decidedly western religion. Regardless I wish the publication had actually CITED this source so that I could read it and review it properly. As it is, this tells me nothing, it's a secondary source.