KING YAZID
The events, the wars, the shedding of blood, the rationalization of transgression, the occupation and the slaughter of populations is part of the scenario that we are in physically and personally today. We have been looking at a historical matter that is meant, by the enemies of Allah, His Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam) and the Committed Muslims to divide us and to have us go at each other for generations so that we cannot bring ourselves together in a frame of unity, with a common purpose and with a set direction. In other words, there's a deliberate plan that has been set in motion, in the past several years, to make it impossible for the Muslims to bring about a solidarity among themselves. When we try to go to the roots of this matter, we are not doing this out of a tradition- traditions have a way of numbing the mind. We are not doing this as a matter of expediency- these types of matters blow over in a limited time and cannot be sustained. What we are saying relates as a matter of principle to Allah and His Prophet and as a matter of brotherhood to the Muslims as populations and peoples and not as elites or governments. If we can crystallize our perception of this, we are the ones who will come out winning and the enemies of Allah and His Prophet will come out losing. We said before and we will say again, it is not an easy task to untangle issues that have taken root in culture, nationalism and sectarianism and put them back where they belong, especially when there are hundreds of years that have accumulated pertaining to the meanings of these issues. We will try to pick up from where we left off.
We said that at the beginning of Islamic political history, the Muslims had suffered a damaging political set back that demonstrated itself when Muslims went from a system of Khilafah to one of Mulk- from a dispensation on the model of the Nubuwwah to a form of government that is characterized by a dictatorship and oppression. We tried to make it clear that the ayaat in the Qur'an that speak about dictatorial rulers speak about them to condemn them.
As a matter of fact, when kings make their debut in a social order, they render its noble segment of population into inferiors after having destroyed that social order and this is the way they behave (Surah An-Naml verse 34)
We endeavored to make clear that we, Muslims, turned a bloody page in our history when we had a monarchy imposed upon us. Today, we'll take a closer look at a time period in that early Islamic history that has to do with the 2nd Muslim king- Yazid, the crown prince who was imposed by his father- the 1st king in Islam- by royal decree in violation of Shura, Islamic popular political participation and also in defiance of the Prophets Sunnah and Seerah by which he did not impose on the Muslims, in disregard to the element of imaan in them, a ruler who will rule against their will. That is in fulfillment of the ayah,
O you who are committed to Allah, obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those who are entrusted with your affairs- who come from you. (Surah An-Nisa verse 59)
Brothers and sisters, these are facts. Either we look at them with open minds and reach the Qur'anic and Sunnatic solution or we leave them to the mass murderers of the world who will come back on us with these affairs to seed our mind with hatred and who will seed our hearts with rancor. We don't have a choice and we are going to have to look at these issues by a mind and a heart that is formulated by Allah and His Prophet. This is going to be the only way out of what is being planned against us. If we take a look at the 2nd king who was imposed on our history, without getting into his personal life (his personal life was one of a degenerate in every sense of the word, and he could degenerate in himself and decompose and it wouldn't bother us a moment- the problem is that he had the power to inflict his evil character on not only the Muslims of that time, but even all the Muslims who have lived since that time, up until now... We still don't have clear Muslim minds on who this character is, or for that matter, the string of kings, monarchs, autocrats, authoritarians, dictators and oppressors who have followed since then, until we have todays political structure that is littered with these types of figures all around us and who hide behind Islamic symbolism or behind Islamic ritualism. We still don't have enough information to see through this façade.
King Yazid the Usurper
Three Major Events During Yazid's Rule
There are three major events that took place during the monarchy of Yazid that shook the Muslim conscience and Ummah to the fiber of its heart and the element of its brains.
First Major Event
The 1st one was Yazids military orders against Al-Imam Al-Husein (radi Allahu anhu). Brothers and sisters, before we speak about this issue, here is where we encounter these three nuances or disturbing factors- culture, sectarianism and nationalism. Only a few people or not many of us can take a calculated look at what happened without these three elements. (You ask yourself), who is it in your life, whom you've listened to (speaking about this issue) who spoke about it without culture, sectarianism and nationalism. The easy answer to that is "Not Many! And that's being generous too!" We are going to try to speak about this as best as we can without any of these elements. Yazid who was the imposed dictator on the Muslims, he was a crown prince- by royal fiat from his father king who placed him in the position of the head of state of an Islamic society. What did this person do that shook the Muslims to their core? The 1st thing he did was to identify Husein, officially- it's one thing to think about a person in your mind, but it's another thing to go about trying to make this the public thoughts and impression of everyone around- but this is what he did. He went around and taking the queue from his deceased father, he promoted the idea that Husien was an insurgent, a dissident or a rebel. We don't know of anyone in our Islamic history, belonging to the 1st or the 2nd generation of Muslims, who was honored with the company of Allahs Prophet and who considered Husein to be an insurgent, dissident or a rebel. Here's the area where we are going to have to rethink ourselves- Husein was a person who took issue with the deviation of Islamic politics. Do Muslims have the right or don't they have the right to take issue with kings and absolute rulers when they deviate from Allah and His Prophet? The immediate and obvious answer to that is that not only do we have the right but it is our responsibility and it is mandatory upon us to take issue with those who have deviated at that level from Allah and His Prophet. What does he do? Yazid authorizes an army of 4,000 individuals- men under arms- to go and fight against (in his language) this insurgent or political trouble-maker. The army of 4,000 was under the leadership of Umar ibn Saad ibn Abi Waqqas. Brothers and sisters- we know that we are stepping on some sectarian territory, we mean not to present this issue from a sectarian point of view. Saad ibn Abi Waqqas (radi Allahu anhu), the father of this military commander, was known for his immediacy to the circle of Allahs Prophet. In other words, (we try to avoid these words because they have these deep sectarian connotations) he was a Sahabi, but that doesn't mean that automatically his children or grandchildren are going to be automatic "angels". You can have a Prophet and his own son is against Allah- and we had this. Nuh (alaih salaam) was Allahs Prophet and his son was a kaafir. When the final moment of truth approached and there was this parting of company between Nuh and his son, Nuhs son says to him
I'm going to go to a mountain whereby I will be protected (Surah Hud verse 43)
and Nuh told him
There's nothing that's going to protect you from Allahs decree on this day (Surah Hud verse 43)
So, we have this military commander who is in the ranks of military criminals. Whatever his relationship may have been doesn't matter- a person is judged by what he does and not by his family lineage. This person has under his command 4,000 men under arms and they go to encounter Husein. Once again, we have to re-emphasize that the problem we suffer from is that we have not made it clear in our minds- brothers and sisters- we're very slow, we've had 1,400 years to think about this and we still have not made the point to our own selves. Are we legitimate in opposing rulers who step out of the Qur'an and the Sunnah? The political message and lesson that comes through very clearly from that time- regardless of the cultural, sectarian and national baggage- is that we have all the right in the world and all the God given legitimacy that exists to oppose those who have gone off from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This point has to re-settle in our public mind. We need to regenerate a political "culture" that makes us brave enough to expose those who have gone off course. In this case, we have one of the 1st obvious incidents of a ruler or king who has gone off course and a man of Allah who wants the Muslims to be back on course. So, you have an army of 4,000 soldiers who face off against Husein. What does Husein have? Does he have an army? He had 32 individuals who were on horses and 40 individuals who were not mounted. That's 72 individuals who were with him. By any definition, this is not an army. Then, this encounter or clash begins in the area of Karbala. The details that take place have also been consumed by the three evils of nationalism, culture and sectarianism. People just don't have what it takes to learn from what happened because of this type of consumption. What happened was simply the following. When these two sides met and before there was any sword that was raised, Husein simply communicated to the other side, (we're paraphrasing) "Ok- Now that we've met, let it pass without any bloodshed. Let us go back to where we were or to the frontiers or even to Yazid himself." But this type of army was not the type that was going to listen to reason. It had its orders and they said "If anything, we will refer you to ibn Ziyad, the ruler of Al-Kufa." Of course, being that ibn Ziyad had a record of brutality, that was not an option. So, they finally engaged in that war. We call it a war because it is not something that can be described in other terms, even though one side of that war was not really an army. You cannot call 72 individuals, in the conditions that they were in, as opposed to 4,000 a typical military clash of armed forces. After everyone was practically killed in that confrontation, and Husein was one of the last to be killed, how does this army behave? In looking at this affair, we can realize how people who have power- governments, establishments and militaries- behave when power corrupts them. Without the emotional details, because here is where the mind field of culture, sectarianism and nationalism thwarts the lesson- we want to skip over that and we want to learn- after this type of army kills Husein, what does it do? It beheads him- this is the grandson of Allahs Prophet- any average and moral standard would exclude this behavior, but we're not speaking about an average and moral standard of behavior here. We are talking about something else that had more to do with the reaction of people who could not live with the norms of Islamic justice and the standards or the Qur'an and the Prophet. This simply was a nationalist issue to the people who were justifying to themselves what they were doing- this is what we have to understand. This is almost the lost lesson in all of this. There's rationalization for what people do, and the rationalization for this unbecoming conduct at an encounter like this- where they kill a person whom they consider to be their political opponent; thereafter they behead the person, thereafter they bring their horses and trample on this persons body, and then, personally, with their "jackboots" (so to speak) they also step on that persons body and you take off the clothes that cover his body and the private parts of his body and then they go around to the other individuals who were killed in this confrontation and then they are beheaded- forces us to think about what type of psychology was at work and, more yet, what type of mentality rationalizes that type of psychology? The simple and straight answer to that is that the "conquerors and victors", by worldly measurement, are saying "we will not permit anyone to step out of their own history, culture and nationalism because there are utopian standards and ambitions for justice." That was not only the undeclared policies of that time, but they are now the elaborate, voluminous and encyclopedic policies of today. In todays Islamic context, can you try to find or locate someone of vision who can step outside of their culture, nationalism and history, because they want to belong to Allah and His Prophet?! They will immediately be pulled back into it if they want to hang onto their lives or else, they know that they could not survive a challenge like that. This is the lesson that people who are intoxicated with their cultures, nationalism and sectarianism for over 1,000 years cannot understand and still have not understood. What does this public attitude of nationalism and sectarianism do? It takes the heads from this battle to Al-Kufa and then it shows the people "LOOK!" Remember, these are the people who were saying to begin with "We will stand on principle with justice." What happened? These were the people who were looking at heads without bodies. They were the ones who were saying "We will support you." Then, after that, these heads were taken to Damascus. A statement was made in the middle of all this after the "material conclusion" of this battle- this battle still continues, but people who are suffocating with their own non-Islamic idiosyncrasies can't see it. At the conclusion of this very educating experience in Islamic history, the military leader as well as the governor or ruler in Al-Kufa said "Thanks and praise be to Allah who has given victory to Al-Haqq and it's people…"- as if Yazid and his crowd stand for this Haqq- but this is what they are saying and this is what they repeat – "…and Ameer Al-Mu'mineen (you all know what that means- now Yazid has become Ameer Al-Mu'mineen?!) and his party ". Here is the follow up statement "And we thank Allah that he has defeated the liar, the son of the liar- Al-Husein and his party." As we said, this is not only a historical statement, but this is also what todays heads of state repeat every time they think they scored against Islamic leaders or movements. At this moment, some people are overcome with either emotions, stereotypes or comfortable rationalization and they can't see that even if they are theoretically in agreement with Husein- and mind you, all Muslims are theoretically in agreement with Husien- you can go to any Muslim and will you see anyone who is going to defend Yazid? You'll not find anyone whether he is a Sunni or a Shi'i- no-one is going to defend Yazid. But, the matter is not defending a person; the matter is looking at a social trend that this person represents. Yazid was representing a social reality- a social reality that was saying "we are not going to step out of our nationalism for the sake of some theoretical justice that Husein is speaking about."
There are three major events that took place during the monarchy of Yazid that shook the Muslim conscience and Ummah to the fiber of its heart and the element of its brains.
First Major Event
The 1st one was Yazids military orders against Al-Imam Al-Husein (radi Allahu anhu). Brothers and sisters, before we speak about this issue, here is where we encounter these three nuances or disturbing factors- culture, sectarianism and nationalism. Only a few people or not many of us can take a calculated look at what happened without these three elements. (You ask yourself), who is it in your life, whom you've listened to (speaking about this issue) who spoke about it without culture, sectarianism and nationalism. The easy answer to that is "Not Many! And that's being generous too!" We are going to try to speak about this as best as we can without any of these elements. Yazid who was the imposed dictator on the Muslims, he was a crown prince- by royal fiat from his father king who placed him in the position of the head of state of an Islamic society. What did this person do that shook the Muslims to their core? The 1st thing he did was to identify Husein, officially- it's one thing to think about a person in your mind, but it's another thing to go about trying to make this the public thoughts and impression of everyone around- but this is what he did. He went around and taking the queue from his deceased father, he promoted the idea that Husien was an insurgent, a dissident or a rebel. We don't know of anyone in our Islamic history, belonging to the 1st or the 2nd generation of Muslims, who was honored with the company of Allahs Prophet and who considered Husein to be an insurgent, dissident or a rebel. Here's the area where we are going to have to rethink ourselves- Husein was a person who took issue with the deviation of Islamic politics. Do Muslims have the right or don't they have the right to take issue with kings and absolute rulers when they deviate from Allah and His Prophet? The immediate and obvious answer to that is that not only do we have the right but it is our responsibility and it is mandatory upon us to take issue with those who have deviated at that level from Allah and His Prophet. What does he do? Yazid authorizes an army of 4,000 individuals- men under arms- to go and fight against (in his language) this insurgent or political trouble-maker. The army of 4,000 was under the leadership of Umar ibn Saad ibn Abi Waqqas. Brothers and sisters- we know that we are stepping on some sectarian territory, we mean not to present this issue from a sectarian point of view. Saad ibn Abi Waqqas (radi Allahu anhu), the father of this military commander, was known for his immediacy to the circle of Allahs Prophet. In other words, (we try to avoid these words because they have these deep sectarian connotations) he was a Sahabi, but that doesn't mean that automatically his children or grandchildren are going to be automatic "angels". You can have a Prophet and his own son is against Allah- and we had this. Nuh (alaih salaam) was Allahs Prophet and his son was a kaafir. When the final moment of truth approached and there was this parting of company between Nuh and his son, Nuhs son says to him
I'm going to go to a mountain whereby I will be protected (Surah Hud verse 43)
and Nuh told him
There's nothing that's going to protect you from Allahs decree on this day (Surah Hud verse 43)
So, we have this military commander who is in the ranks of military criminals. Whatever his relationship may have been doesn't matter- a person is judged by what he does and not by his family lineage. This person has under his command 4,000 men under arms and they go to encounter Husein. Once again, we have to re-emphasize that the problem we suffer from is that we have not made it clear in our minds- brothers and sisters- we're very slow, we've had 1,400 years to think about this and we still have not made the point to our own selves. Are we legitimate in opposing rulers who step out of the Qur'an and the Sunnah? The political message and lesson that comes through very clearly from that time- regardless of the cultural, sectarian and national baggage- is that we have all the right in the world and all the God given legitimacy that exists to oppose those who have gone off from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This point has to re-settle in our public mind. We need to regenerate a political "culture" that makes us brave enough to expose those who have gone off course. In this case, we have one of the 1st obvious incidents of a ruler or king who has gone off course and a man of Allah who wants the Muslims to be back on course. So, you have an army of 4,000 soldiers who face off against Husein. What does Husein have? Does he have an army? He had 32 individuals who were on horses and 40 individuals who were not mounted. That's 72 individuals who were with him. By any definition, this is not an army. Then, this encounter or clash begins in the area of Karbala. The details that take place have also been consumed by the three evils of nationalism, culture and sectarianism. People just don't have what it takes to learn from what happened because of this type of consumption. What happened was simply the following. When these two sides met and before there was any sword that was raised, Husein simply communicated to the other side, (we're paraphrasing) "Ok- Now that we've met, let it pass without any bloodshed. Let us go back to where we were or to the frontiers or even to Yazid himself." But this type of army was not the type that was going to listen to reason. It had its orders and they said "If anything, we will refer you to ibn Ziyad, the ruler of Al-Kufa." Of course, being that ibn Ziyad had a record of brutality, that was not an option. So, they finally engaged in that war. We call it a war because it is not something that can be described in other terms, even though one side of that war was not really an army. You cannot call 72 individuals, in the conditions that they were in, as opposed to 4,000 a typical military clash of armed forces. After everyone was practically killed in that confrontation, and Husein was one of the last to be killed, how does this army behave? In looking at this affair, we can realize how people who have power- governments, establishments and militaries- behave when power corrupts them. Without the emotional details, because here is where the mind field of culture, sectarianism and nationalism thwarts the lesson- we want to skip over that and we want to learn- after this type of army kills Husein, what does it do? It beheads him- this is the grandson of Allahs Prophet- any average and moral standard would exclude this behavior, but we're not speaking about an average and moral standard of behavior here. We are talking about something else that had more to do with the reaction of people who could not live with the norms of Islamic justice and the standards or the Qur'an and the Prophet. This simply was a nationalist issue to the people who were justifying to themselves what they were doing- this is what we have to understand. This is almost the lost lesson in all of this. There's rationalization for what people do, and the rationalization for this unbecoming conduct at an encounter like this- where they kill a person whom they consider to be their political opponent; thereafter they behead the person, thereafter they bring their horses and trample on this persons body, and then, personally, with their "jackboots" (so to speak) they also step on that persons body and you take off the clothes that cover his body and the private parts of his body and then they go around to the other individuals who were killed in this confrontation and then they are beheaded- forces us to think about what type of psychology was at work and, more yet, what type of mentality rationalizes that type of psychology? The simple and straight answer to that is that the "conquerors and victors", by worldly measurement, are saying "we will not permit anyone to step out of their own history, culture and nationalism because there are utopian standards and ambitions for justice." That was not only the undeclared policies of that time, but they are now the elaborate, voluminous and encyclopedic policies of today. In todays Islamic context, can you try to find or locate someone of vision who can step outside of their culture, nationalism and history, because they want to belong to Allah and His Prophet?! They will immediately be pulled back into it if they want to hang onto their lives or else, they know that they could not survive a challenge like that. This is the lesson that people who are intoxicated with their cultures, nationalism and sectarianism for over 1,000 years cannot understand and still have not understood. What does this public attitude of nationalism and sectarianism do? It takes the heads from this battle to Al-Kufa and then it shows the people "LOOK!" Remember, these are the people who were saying to begin with "We will stand on principle with justice." What happened? These were the people who were looking at heads without bodies. They were the ones who were saying "We will support you." Then, after that, these heads were taken to Damascus. A statement was made in the middle of all this after the "material conclusion" of this battle- this battle still continues, but people who are suffocating with their own non-Islamic idiosyncrasies can't see it. At the conclusion of this very educating experience in Islamic history, the military leader as well as the governor or ruler in Al-Kufa said "Thanks and praise be to Allah who has given victory to Al-Haqq and it's people…"- as if Yazid and his crowd stand for this Haqq- but this is what they are saying and this is what they repeat – "…and Ameer Al-Mu'mineen (you all know what that means- now Yazid has become Ameer Al-Mu'mineen?!) and his party ". Here is the follow up statement "And we thank Allah that he has defeated the liar, the son of the liar- Al-Husein and his party." As we said, this is not only a historical statement, but this is also what todays heads of state repeat every time they think they scored against Islamic leaders or movements. At this moment, some people are overcome with either emotions, stereotypes or comfortable rationalization and they can't see that even if they are theoretically in agreement with Husein- and mind you, all Muslims are theoretically in agreement with Husien- you can go to any Muslim and will you see anyone who is going to defend Yazid? You'll not find anyone whether he is a Sunni or a Shi'i- no-one is going to defend Yazid. But, the matter is not defending a person; the matter is looking at a social trend that this person represents. Yazid was representing a social reality- a social reality that was saying "we are not going to step out of our nationalism for the sake of some theoretical justice that Husein is speaking about."
Second Major - Yazid sends forces in Madina
The 2nd major event that took place during the monarchy of Yazid, because of his unscrupulous obsession with power, that shook the Muslims to the fiber of its heart and brains was what is referred to in Islamic history as Yawm Al-Harra. An army of 12,000, of this new power structure committed a massacre in Al-Medinah. After the martyrdom of Husein, the people of Al-Medinah could see what was going on so they began to revolt. This is the Prophets city of asylum, support, refuge, his power base so 1st of all they tell the people of Al-Medinah "We give you three days to reconsider your position and if you don't reconsider, terrible and horrible things are going to happen." This is what is startling about Muslim history- after that ultimatum and as bloodletting as this event was, it's not common information among us, Muslims, today- this is a problem- they go into Al-Medinah and they do all types of things. This information comes from ibn Katheer, Al-Mas'udi, At-Tabari, which are the "standard and the mainstream" Islamic books, so we're not bringing this from what some people may say "Where did you pick up that information from?! Maybe it's from an extremist opinion?!- No- This army came to Al-Medinah and it laid it to waste. This is what these historians tell us- this army that came to Al-Medinah attacked those who just wanted to stand by their convictions and they killed 700 plus individuals whom they considered to be a threat. These are in the language of fiqh and Islamic history, Tabieen. They killed 700 Tabieen and they killed three from the Sahaba of Rasulillah. In addition to that, what else did the army do that these books tell us? They violated the virginity or around 1,000 Muslim women- we hope you know what that means. They had 1,000 women who became pregnant from them and 1,000 orphans were born after this raid on Al-Medinah who had no fathers.
The 2nd major event that took place during the monarchy of Yazid, because of his unscrupulous obsession with power, that shook the Muslims to the fiber of its heart and brains was what is referred to in Islamic history as Yawm Al-Harra. An army of 12,000, of this new power structure committed a massacre in Al-Medinah. After the martyrdom of Husein, the people of Al-Medinah could see what was going on so they began to revolt. This is the Prophets city of asylum, support, refuge, his power base so 1st of all they tell the people of Al-Medinah "We give you three days to reconsider your position and if you don't reconsider, terrible and horrible things are going to happen." This is what is startling about Muslim history- after that ultimatum and as bloodletting as this event was, it's not common information among us, Muslims, today- this is a problem- they go into Al-Medinah and they do all types of things. This information comes from ibn Katheer, Al-Mas'udi, At-Tabari, which are the "standard and the mainstream" Islamic books, so we're not bringing this from what some people may say "Where did you pick up that information from?! Maybe it's from an extremist opinion?!- No- This army came to Al-Medinah and it laid it to waste. This is what these historians tell us- this army that came to Al-Medinah attacked those who just wanted to stand by their convictions and they killed 700 plus individuals whom they considered to be a threat. These are in the language of fiqh and Islamic history, Tabieen. They killed 700 Tabieen and they killed three from the Sahaba of Rasulillah. In addition to that, what else did the army do that these books tell us? They violated the virginity or around 1,000 Muslim women- we hope you know what that means. They had 1,000 women who became pregnant from them and 1,000 orphans were born after this raid on Al-Medinah who had no fathers.
Third Major Event - Yazid sends his forces to Mecca.
The 3rd major event that took place during the monarchy of Yazid that shook the Muslims to the fiber of its heart and brains was that after Yawm Al-Harra the army was authorized to proceed to Makkah, where there was Abdullah ibn Az-Zubair (radi Allahu anhu). Once again, if the average Muslim wants to think of his Islamic history, this is obviously something that does not factor into the information that he has of Islamic history- this force goes to Makkah and it uses Al-Manjaneek, a weapon that lobs or throws rocks at a distance to whatever target there is and they put inflammable material on it so that when it lands, it burns whatever the intended target was. What was their intended target? The Ka'ba. Now, you tell us- is this an Islamic government?! How can anyone say that an Islamic government or leader are valid if they are targeting the Ka'ba? This happened- we're not trying to fabricate information. This information is there if you care to review the events of history, but it's not in our active minds because if it were, we probably wouldn't have these illegitimate rulers who are around. They got away with it at that time because they had power; our immediate concern now is how come they still get away with it? Because we don't have accurate information about it! This is our concern nowadays.
The 3rd major event that took place during the monarchy of Yazid that shook the Muslims to the fiber of its heart and brains was that after Yawm Al-Harra the army was authorized to proceed to Makkah, where there was Abdullah ibn Az-Zubair (radi Allahu anhu). Once again, if the average Muslim wants to think of his Islamic history, this is obviously something that does not factor into the information that he has of Islamic history- this force goes to Makkah and it uses Al-Manjaneek, a weapon that lobs or throws rocks at a distance to whatever target there is and they put inflammable material on it so that when it lands, it burns whatever the intended target was. What was their intended target? The Ka'ba. Now, you tell us- is this an Islamic government?! How can anyone say that an Islamic government or leader are valid if they are targeting the Ka'ba? This happened- we're not trying to fabricate information. This information is there if you care to review the events of history, but it's not in our active minds because if it were, we probably wouldn't have these illegitimate rulers who are around. They got away with it at that time because they had power; our immediate concern now is how come they still get away with it? Because we don't have accurate information about it! This is our concern nowadays.