>> 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.

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.