For those not in the know, ctrl+f "prosecuted" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism returns zero results.
For those not in the know, hanging onto the past glories as some form of peak existence is nostalgia at best and misplaced pride at worst.
"Persecute" returns 4 results though
> Most of the Sasanian Empire was overthrown by the Arabs over the course of 16 years in the 7th century. Although the administration of the state was rapidly Islamicized and subsumed under the Umayyad Caliphate, in the beginning "there was little serious pressure" exerted on newly subjected people to adopt Islam
> Under Abbasid rule, Muslim Iranians (who by then were in the majority) in many instances showed severe disregard for and mistreated local Zoroastrians.
...
Islamic Invasion of Persia was as brutal ...
> However, Sir Thomas Walker Arnold doubts the entire narrative of the forced conversions of the Zoroastrians, citing many examples of tolerance that were shown by the Muslim overlords concluding that "in the face of such facts, it is surely impossible to attribute the decay of Zoroastrianism entirely to violent conversions made by the Muslim conquerors". Arnold suggests that some of the conversions of the former-Zoroastrians were actually sincere citing the similarities between the two religions as a motivation for the conversions. Stepaniants also (like Arnold) declares that some historians have said that some of the conversions to Islam were sincere citing the fact that Islam offered a broader door of brotherhood, unlike the restrictive criteria of Zoroastrianism.
...
Those are choice quotes, sure, but they counter the rather brazen tone of GP's comment. That's even disregarding the fact that the society, norms of war and conquest back then was very different from today.
Umm... don't be my namesake.
Why not ask Iranians themselves about their history and how they were treated by the Muslim invaders 1400 years ago? They are currently opposing an __Islamic__ regime which prides itself in following the "true" Islam first introduced by Muhammed, while also killing children and civilians on the streets of Iran as we speak. Look at what the Iranian protesters are chanting these days; they are literally fed up with Islam and how it was forced on them ever since 1400 years ago (conquest of Persia). Most Iranians nowadays believe that their country is being held hostage by Muslim clerics and needs to be liberated. You wouldn't expect that from a nation who mostly accepted Islam for reasons other than force and brutality.
Thats a very strong statement. Most of the country, even half of the country would look very differently on the streets. I didn't notice 40+ millions protesting. Its probably some milder version of that - some protest, on top of that some are unhappy for X and Y (its enough to be pissed off about state of economy and freedom overall), some also for reasons you state and in population of 85 million even 1% is almost a million so easily visible if they gather in cities.
I would love to see Iranian regime change for the better since people there deserve it - I've met them, they are smart, cheerful, curious and on the ground its nothing like 24h news reels show. But if it ends up as another Syria, Lybia or any other arab spring then even current regime is a blessing in comparison and heaven compared to war torn hells of those places.
This is a common argument that pro-regime propaganda spreads inside Iran. But what they don't mention is that the reason Syria got war torn is for the most part the Iran's Islamic regime's interference in Syria. The middle east used to be much more peaceful before the Islamic fanatics took power in Iran.
Certain Western influences have been more detrimental. Islamic is but a political tool. Just like *checks notes* other dominant religions anywhere else.