❌ List of Inaccuracies
“Only three kings had ruled so far by 96 AH / 714 CE”
Fact: The Muʿāwiya I founded the Umayyad Caliphate in 41 AH (661 CE). By 96 AH (714 CE) there had been more than three caliphs: Muʿāwiya I, Yazīd I, Muʿāwiya II, Marwān I, ʿAbd al-Malik, al-Walīd I, then Sulaimān.
Source: Standard lists of Umayyad caliphs in works such as The History of al‑Ṭabarī.
Implication: The post’s count is incorrect and gives a skewed sense of “beginning”.
“Muhammad bin Qāsim … had reached far into India by 714 CE”
Fact: The campaign of Muhammad ibn Qāsim al‑Thaqafī (711-714) conquered Sindh and parts of modern-Pakistan (Debal, Aror, Multan) but did not advance deeply into the Indian subcontinent (e.g., central India, Rajputana, Gangetic Plains).
Source: Historians like Yohanan Friedmann The Advent of Islam in Sindh note that his advance essentially remained in the Indus region.
Implication: Claim “far into India” exaggerates the reach of his campaign.
“Musa bin Nusayr and Tārīq bin Ziyād … reaching as far as Spain, now setting their sights on Europe and Turkey”
Fact: Mūsā ibn Nuṣayr and Tāriq ibn Ziyād indeed played key roles in the conquest of North Africa and Iberia (Spain) around 711-714 CE.
But: The post’s claim that they were “now setting their sights on Turkey” is not supported by primary sources for this period.
Source: Encyclopedic entries (e.g., Wikipedia summary) on Musa ibn Nusayr show his death by ~716 and no credible record of “Turkey” campaign at that time.
Implication: The statement inserts a speculative ambition (“Turkey”) not grounded in early sources.
“As soon as Sulaimān bin Abd al-Malik became king … he strangled all conquests … all eastern and western victories came to a complete halt”
Fact: Sulaimān ibn ʿAbd al‑Malik (r. 715-717 CE) did see a slowdown in some campaigns (especially in Transoxiana) but sources show he did continue military efforts (e.g., siege of Constantinople).
Source: HowOld.co biography summary shows that under Sulaimān, although “the territorial expansion … virtually came to a halt” some campaigns still active.
Implication: The absolute phrasing (“complete halt”, “strangled all conquests”) is an over-statement.
“He was a man fond of food and luxury; what did he care for conquests?”
Fact: This is an evaluative and somewhat moralising claim about Sulaimān’s character. Early sources do not emphasise him as simply pleasure-seeking to the exclusion of military policy.
Source: The History of al-Ṭabarī treats Sulaimān’s reign as having political and military agency. (See e.g., the section on his campaigns against Byzantium.)
Implication: This characterization is not substantiated by primary historical sources as a blanket judgement.
“Raja Dahir’s daughter accused Muhammad bin Qāsim of rape, Sulaimān ordered his arrest, tortured him and killed him, then the daughter confessed the lie”
Fact: The dramatic narrative of a captured daughter of Rājā Dahir falsely accusing Muhammad bin Qāsim comes from late Persian sources (like the Chach Nāmah, maybe 13th-century) not from early Arabic chronicles like al-Ṭabarī.
Source: Historians note that this story is “literary fiction” added later (see Friedmann).
Implication: Presenting this story as settled historical fact is misleading—its historicity is doubtful.
“Qutaiba bin Muslim remained like a minister and advisor to Sulaimān till the end, went with his army to Mecca”
Fact: Qutaybah ibn Muslim al‑Bahili rebelled after Sulaimān’s accession (715 CE) and was killed during that revolt. He did not continue as a loyal minister. (See al-Ṭabarī v.24).
Implication: The post’s claim is factually incorrect.
“Therefore … blame on Sulaimān … but our research shows he had no direct hand in their deaths or misfortunes”
Fact: While it’s arguable that Sulaimān did not personally kill these generals, the historical record does show he made key administrative moves (recalls, reshuffles) that contributed to their downfall (e.g., recall of Muhammad bin Qāsim, purge of al-Ḥajjāj’s faction).
Source: General historiography on Umayyad internal politics (e.g., Powers, The History of al-Ṭabarī, commentary).
Implication: The statement oversimplifies a complex set of political responsibilities and outcomes.
Fact-checking takes a minute nowadays. (Courtesy of ChatGPT.)
Your facts and my facts can be different. The whole point of post is how history is twisted.
From our last interaction on indian fighter jet post, you claimed few points
Are u sure they r still correct? How only your side of history is correct and Pakistanis every claim was wrong?
I will break down your these claims later in a different mood. Will reply if I will think it's worth debate.
Usually it's not worthy points of yours so I let your talks slide as non existent....
Did you read the post or only used gpt to point out flaws?
Yeah, I did. Found an obvious flaw regarding the captured slaves of Raja Dahir so I decided to cross-check and found many more. LOL
Yeah, that's why I don't want people to twist it further. A lie told a thousand times won't become the truth.
And btw, there is only one truth.
Pravesh0 I feel sorry for u as u have no idea what's written by AI reply u dropped as u depend too much on it. I have all the answers but first of all when I reply, u don't read them. It takes me hours to manually write your nonsense's replies.
You are being ignorant about history and taking 2 mins to troll someone discrediting their everything just because AI told u.
It's not the first time. Won't be your last time.
Do u think I should reply them? When someone don't even read, just introduces doubts for other readers onchain and offchain.
You know i debunked most of your points just reading them because they r stupidity to me. But well, u r soo smart cause u can use AI..... Very genius very original.
I don't even wanna talk about how i felt seeing your approach to everything time and time again.
This is not a debate as u never debate. U just drop, discredit others and leaves. Only your side is always correct and all the rest of the world is wrong.
I will reply u when I will feel like replying. But please say things u understand atleast. U r not as smart on this topic as u r assuming.
I am smart enough to sense BS when it's BS.
AI is nothing but a source to collect information from the internet quickly. Don't discredit it if the information goes against you. Rather, try to counter it on point by point basis. AI is not perfect, might never be... but much better at exposing lies that are widely known on the internet.
You are doubting my ability to read and consume information? lol
Even a teenager will get what was written in that AI's reply. How many times will you collectively disregard Al Tabri's works just because they don't suit your causes in modern times? Poor guy must be so pissed at this point.
Rest of the world or your made-up story world?
ChatGPT is good for summarizing a single news article or two, but is not a reliable source for overall news. And the same goes for other social media -- people who only get news from Facebook, for example, will be lacking much of the overall story.
Classic deception technique. Attack the medium and try to discredit it rather than the message. If you think the sources and reference given by the AI is false then present counter sources. I never saw any in that post or in replies.
But rather than talking on facts and arguments it is so easy to attack the messenger. Talk about every other thing than facts. Perfect!
I have answers but I like to debate with humans not AI prompts
Yeah, you are right. I am not a human. LOL