In certainty there can be very little authentic history unless archived scientifically in the computer age. That there were kings reinged, fights, battles, conquests, defeat, this was said, that was said, may be true but with metamorphosis of time, memory, and its coloring biases make them conjecture. Since the post itself admits that what Maudoodi wrote being too harsh is not agreeable to other? So agreeable history can be created in laboratory.
Much of the present condition of Muslims is a consequence of synthesizing their life with dubious stories. Digging histories is a further colossal waste of time because there can be little past authentic stories available to us. But Muslims are good at compulsively reflecting in the dubious past than in the future doing productive work for themselves rather than wasting time.
But if one is really interested in digging conflicting history some guidelines are needed. One such measure is that if we really need to know anything from the past we must know its effect, otherwise it is a futile obsession. So to applying this guideline, please tell what its benefits to Muslims future if Yazeed was a Muslim or not. Or how Muslims would be doomed he was a Muslim or not. Please explain its effect so to take the post in its true perspective.