The Roast Pork

After saying salaam, and that every bird appearing on the pulpit, is obliged to make a voice, the bluebird began with a song,

Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt?
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in

Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts?
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in

In their styles with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking

Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon *)

Then she continued, "Indeed, praise is due to Allah. We praise Him, seek His assistance and Forgiveness, and we seek refuge with Allah from the evil within ourselves and the mistakes in our actions. Whoever is guided by Allah cannot be misguided by anyone, and whoever is misguided by Allah cannot be guided by anyone, and I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah alone, and I testify that Muhammad (ﷺ) is His worshipper and Messenger."

The bluebird paused for a moment, then told a story, "A young pig was shut up in a fold-yard with a goat and a sheep. On one occasion, the shepherd laid hold of him, when he grunted, and squeaked, and resisted violently.
The sheep and the goat complained of his distressing cries, and said, "He often handles us, and we do not cry out." To this, he replied, "Your handling and mine are very different things. He catches you only for your wool, or your milk, but he lays hold on me for my very life!"
The sheep and the goat were silent, in their mind, they tought that sometimes, complaining, can be justified. But indeed, what the pig had said, was necessary to clarify. Then the sheep said, "O my brother, what do you mean by that? Tell us!" The pig said, "Don't you know that the shepherd would kill me, roast me and make me a meal on Eid." The sheep and the goat looked at each other, they smiled, then the goat tried to explain, "Forgive us brother, but what is on your mind, is really not true." The pig respond, sadly, "Don't you imagine how it hurts when the shepherd killed me, skinned me, cut me roughly?" The sheep was trying to convince, "Everything you imagine is not true." The pig asked, "Why?" The goat answered, "Because, the shepherd, our master, is a Muslim. He won't eat pork. What have I heard, there are strict rules in Islam when it comes to killing animals." The pig was stunned, then he asked, "Is that true? Explain it to me, please!"

The sheep declared, "What I will tell you, what I have heard from our master. Hear this, once, our master said to the other shepherds, "Allah Almighty has made it lawful for Muslims to eat the meat of pure animals and to take benefit from their various parts. But He has made this lawfulness contingent on adherence to firm injunctions presented in the Qur’an and the Sunna. The driving principle behind these injunctions is that an animal, in essence, bears similarity to a human being in that it has a soul and perception and can sense comfort and pain. Looking from this perspective, the seemingly logical ruling is, that it would not be lawful for a human being to slaughter an animal, eat its meat, and take benefit from its various parts. However, Allah has made man the most noble of creation and has placed the world at his disposal. All that He has created is for man s advantage. He says, 'It is He who created for you all that is in the earth.'

It is clear, that Allah has made the consumption of animals permissible purely out of His vast kindness. As this is the case, He has made consuming them subject to some “ ritual” (taabbudi) laws [those that are strictly and precisely determined by Allah through the Qur’an and the Sunna of His Messenger (ﷺ)]. A servant of Allah who abides by these ritual laws, thereby displays his acknowledgment that the lawfulness of an animal is a great blessing from Allah, and that he really does not deserve to derive benefit from or take relish in eating from an animal until he recognizes this blessing, shows thanks for it, and follows the method that Allah has prescribed for slaughtering the animal.

Of all law systems, Islamic law, the Sharia, is exceptional in its treatment of the issue of animal slaughter. It delineates in superb detail the acceptable slaughtering methods, founding them on sound principles from the Qur’an and Sunna. In view of the thorough attention Islamic law pays to this matter, the act of slaughtering an animal is not a “non-ritual” ('aadii) act. That is, it is not an act for which one need not adhere to any principles or laws; one may not do it however he pleases, according to his need, personal interest, or simply what he finds easiest. It is, rather, a ritual act, for which it is obligatory to conform to the laws outlined in the Qur’an and Sunna.

Islam's stance on what is permissible to eat and what is not is clear. There are strict rules when it comes to meat regarding what is allowed and what is forbidden. Allah says,

حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنْزِيْرِ وَمَآ اُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللّٰهِ بِهٖ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوْذَةُ وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيْحَةُ وَمَآ اَكَلَ السَّبُعُ اِلَّا مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْۗ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ وَاَنْ تَسْتَقْسِمُوْا بِالْاَزْلَامِۗ ذٰلِكُمْ فِسْقٌۗ اَلْيَوْمَ يَىِٕسَ الَّذِيْنَ كَفَرُوْا مِنْ دِيْنِكُمْ فَلَا تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَاخْشَوْنِۗ اَلْيَوْمَ اَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِيْنَكُمْ وَاَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِيْ وَرَضِيْتُ لَكُمُ الْاِسْلَامَ دِيْنًاۗ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ فِيْ مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّاِثْمٍۙ فَاِنَّ اللّٰهَ غَفُوْرٌ رَّحِيْمٌ

"Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah, and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islām as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." [QS. Al-Ma'idah (5):3]

There are two categories of animals, first, water creatures, and they can be divided into two types, fish-like creatures that do not live outside water, and, creatures that do not resemble fish. Fish-like creatures are halāl by consensus of the scholars of Fiqh, except that the Hanafīs differed from this when it came to floating fish, which they consider makrūh. As for non-fish-like creatures, the opinion of the Shāfi’īs is that every dead water creature is halāl except the frog, regardless of how it died. This also is the opinion of Mālik and Ahmad. However, Mālik considered the dolphin makrūh. As for ash-Shāfi’ī, he said, “It is allowed to eat the dolphin and the beaver,” and an-Nawawī said, “What is correct is that the ruling of fish applies to all of these, and it is not necessary to perform any slaughtering procedures on them.”

And from the water creatures, frogs are prohibited by agreement of the Shāfi’īs and Hambalīs. As for the Hanafīs, they forbid everything in the sea besides fish. Likewise, alligators are prohibited for food, as they are considered water beasts whose power lies in their fangs, and in the authentic hadīth, “Any fanged creature is forbidden.” And this is the strongest opinion with the Shāfi’īs and Hambalīs. And none of the creatures of the sea need to be slaughtered in any way according to the correct opinion.

The second category is that of land creatures, and they are also of two types, those without flowing blood, and, those with flowing blood. As for those without flowing blood, they are all harām except for the locust. So, flies, ants, bees, beetles, wasps, and pests such as scorpions are all forbidden to be eaten because they are all foul, unclean creatures. This also includes ticks, lice, and worms. And in an authentic hadīth, the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) prohibited the killing of four creatures: the ant, the bee, the hoopoe, and the shrike. As for the tiny worms that are found inside fruits such as figs, dates, and apricots, as well as certain cheeses, these are not forbidden to eat, and the decision to eat them goes back to one’s natural inclination. As for the locust being permissible. As for the mule, it is harām. As for wild animals, every beast with fangs is forbidden, as is every bird with claws. And it is forbidden to eat eagles, hawks, and falcons, just as it is forbidden to eat dogs and cats. As for rabbits, they are halāl. As for hyenas and foxes, they were permitted by the Shāfi’īs. And it is forbidden to eat the meat of bears, mongooses, jackals, and monkeys. Also, it is harām to eat whatever consumes carcasses, such as the eagle, the stork, the crow, and beetles. It is harām to eat snakes, as they possess fangs. As for the lizard, it is allowed to eat.

The overall conclusions regarding this subject are, first, sea creatures are all halāl and do not need to undergo any slaughtering procedure. Second, land animals that are harām are not to be slaughtered, and their meat and skin cannot be purified by slaughtering. Third, captured animals must be slaughtered with a cut to the throat. Fourth, permissible land animals and domestic animals and stray animals must be hit with either an arrow or a bullet, such that its blood flows from any part of its body.

The Islamic practice of slaughtering animals by means of a sharp cut to the front of the neck has frequently come under attack by some animal-rights activists as being a form of animal cruelty, the claim being that it is a painful, inhumane method of killing animals. In many places in the West, it is required by law to stun the animals with a shot to the head before the slaughter, supposedly to render the animal unconscious and to prevent it from reviving before it is killed, so as not to slow down the movement of the processing line. It is also used to prevent the animal from feeling pain before it dies.

The Arabic word used in Islamic law to denote “lawful slaughter” is dhakaat. Dhakaat, at its lexical root زك و, means “ to attain completion or perfection” (itmaam). From this root, also comes dhakaa’, or “intelligence,” which is a sort of completeness in its own sense, in that it gradually develops with age and experience. Similarly, the prescribed method of slaughtering is called dhakaat, because it completes— in other words, it fulfills— the requirements by which eating an animal becomes permissible. Some scholars have said that lawful slaughter is named dhakaat because of another meaningof the word, “ to produce a fragrant aroma.” The technical term they use is raa'iha dhakiyya, meaning “fragrant aroma.” When an animals blood flows out during slaughtering, its meat takes on a fresh, fragrant scent.

In the context of the Shari’ah, dhakaah is to perform the method of slaughter with its proper conditions, and this requires five things, first, the slaughterer, and two conditions must apply to him, he must be a Muslim or from the People of the Book, and, it is not allowed to eat something slaughtered by one who is insane, drunk, or prepubescent who cannot tell right from wrong. Second, the instrument being used to slaughter with, and two conditions apply to it, it must be sharp, and, it cannot be a tooth or claw.
Third, where the cut is made, and it must be at the throat, specifically, the gap between the base of the neck and the chest. Fourth, what to say at the time of slaughtering, and this is the Tasmiyah - ‘In the Name of Allāh’ and ‘Allāh is the Greatest’. Fifth, what to cut, and this includes most or all of the throat, the esophagus, and, the two jugular veins at either sides of the neck.

The killing method that Islamic law considers satisfactory for a proper and lawful slaughter differs for different types of animals. In the case of an animal that is not under ones physical control, either because it is wild or because it has strayed from other domesticated animals, it is sufficient to wound it with any sharp tool that causes its blood to flow out until it dies. This type of slaughter is called “ forced slaughter” (dhaakat idtiraariyya): one cannot gain control of an animal to slaughter it by hand and is therefore “forced” to kill it from a distance. It is not necessary that such an animal be slaughtered by the methods of dhabh or nahr. Forced slaughter is prescribed in the case of hunting. I will not concerned with explaining the laws of this type of slaughter, but focuses instead on the type called “voluntary slaughter” (dhakat ikhtiyaariyya).

Voluntary slaughter refers to when an animal is under ones physical control, be it a domesticated animal or a captured wild animal. In this case, it is obligatory to cause its blood to flow out by the conventional method of cutting into its jugular veins. The jurists have stipulated that for a lawful slaughter, at least some of the jugular veins (awdaaj ) must be cut into. Awdaaj is the plural of wadaj, which for our purposes simply means “ jugular vein.” Of the jugular veins, there are two main, external ones, called in Arabic wadajaan, the dual form of wadaj. The jurists, however, have extended the usage of the word awdaaj to include the trachea and esophagus. Imam Shaffi'i, may Allah have mercyon him, says that it is obligatory for one to cut into the trachea and esophagus, and that this is sufficient for a complete slaughter, even if one does not cut either of the external jugular veins.

Despite the jurists’ varying opinions regarding these secondary details, they have agreed that for voluntary slaughter, the cutting point is where the throat meets the upper part of the chest, and that it is necessary to cut into more than one of the four passageways. From what we have seen so far, it should be evident that the opinion requiring at least one of the two external jugular veins to be cut into is the dominant opinion. This is because making the blood flow out entirely, which is required, can only occur by cutting into one or both of the external jugular veins, which are the main blood vessels in the neck.

The jurists have agreed that for a complete and proper slaughter, according to Islamic law, the implement used must be sharpened such that it easily cuts and pierces the animal because of its sharpness, not because of its heaviness. It is not necessary that the slaughtering tool be a knife; it is permissible to slaughter using anything with asharp edge, whether it is made of steel, stone, wood, or somethingelse.

The general body ( jumhur) of the jurists have concluded that for an act of animal slaughter to be acceptable by Islamic law, it is also obligatory that the slaughterer perform tasmiya at the time of slaughtering. Tasmiya is the technical term for “ mentioning the name of Allah,” which must be done verbally, not just in the heart, immediately before slaughtering. The words usually used are Bismillaahi Allaahu Akbar, meaning “ In the name of Allah; Allah is the Greatest ” However, it is acceptable to say other statements, e.g., Laa ilaaha iliallaah, as long as Allah’s name, and no one else’s, is mentioned.

As for the slaughterer, he must be a sane Muslim or from the People of the Book. The condition of sanity (‘aql) is meant to ensure that the person intended to slaughter, as slaughtering is an act of worship, and it therefore requires an intention. This is the position of the majority of Hanafī, Mālikī, and Hambalī scholars. So, it is not allowed to eat the meat slaughtered by one who is drunk, a young child, or insane. Based on this, it is not allowed to eat meat slaughtered by the polytheist, the disbeliever not from the People of the Book, the apostate, the idol worshipper, the Communist, the Druze, the Nusayrī, the Qādiyānī, the Bahā’ī, the Magian, the Hindu, or the Buddhist.

Now, we face the issue of asking about the status of the meat when in doubt. Is it necessary to ask about the meat or its origin? It is obligatory to ask about the meat when you don’t know or are uncertain, especially in the times we are in when people purchase meat slaughtered by non-Muslims without any hesitation, and there is no might nor power except with Allāh. In such a case, you should ask people if you are invited to their dinner tables if they bought imported meat or meat slaughtered in the lands of the Muslims.
The Muslim should ask the meat shops about the kind of meat they are purchasing so that he can protect his religion and honor, and so that he would know if what he is putting in his mouth is halāl or harām. After asking, if the uncertainty is removed and it is confirmed that the meat he is buying is halāl, he can purchase it and eat. However, if uncertainty still remains, what is he to do? In such a case, he must not buy the meat, as meat is not permissible when there its status is uncertain.

Other shepherd asked, "Why pork forbidden in Islam?" Our master said, "A Muslim spends his or her life endeavouring to please Allah by worshipping Him and obeying His laws, or rules. One of those rules is that the eating pork, or pork products is forbidden.
At first, one might wonder what harm could come from pork, a product eaten in many parts of the world, and the fact that pork contains parasites and diseases harmful to man may spring to mind as a justifiable reason for abstaining. However, when analysing why Muslims are forbidden to eat pork, this becomes a secondary reason. Muslims simply do not eat pork or pork products because Allah has prohibited it. Allah says,

اِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَیۡکُمُ الۡمَیۡتَۃَ وَ الدَّمَ وَ لَحۡمَ الۡخِنۡزِیۡرِ وَ مَاۤ اُہِلَّ بِہٖ لِغَیۡرِ اللّٰہِ ۚ فَمَنِ اضۡطُرَّ غَیۡرَ بَاغٍ وَّ لَا عَادٍ فَلَاۤ اِثۡمَ عَلَیۡہِ ؕ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ غَفُوۡرٌ رَّحِیۡمٌ

"He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." [QS. Al-Baqarah (2):173].

Sometimes we may never know or understand why Allah has ordained some things and prohibited others. In the case of pork, no specific reason for the prohibition is given except in Quran 6:145 when Allah says, in reference to the flesh of pig, “for that surely is impure.” A Muslim submits to Allah’s commands willingly, without needing to know the reason behind the divine rule. Moreover, Allah has expressly stated that a believer hears the words of his Lord and obeys them. And Allah knows best."

Paused, then the sheep said, "Well, that's what I know about what kind of animals a Muslim can and should not eat. How do you respond?" The pig was pleased, his eyes sparkled, then sighed, "Aah, it turns out, I'm not going to get slaughtered." However, suddenly, he was dumbfounded, then said, "Are you going to be slaughtered?" The goat and the sheep looked at each other, laughed and said, "It's okay, that means we have done what Allah has commanded."

References :
- Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, The Islamic Laws of Animal Slaughter, translated by Amir A. Toft, White Thread Press
- Abdullah Azzam, The Ruling on Meat Slaughtered In The West, Open Sources
- Aisha Stacey, Why Pork Forbidden In Islam?, Islamreligion.com

- Rev. Geo. Fyler Townsend, M.A., Aesop Fables, George Routledge and Sons
*) Piggies, written by George Harrison 

Bahasa

The Prisoners

Suddenly, there was a hissing voice, "O my brother, did you mention my name?" The crow turned left and right, no one, up and around, no one was there. "I'm here, down below!" Hearing that, all the birds looked down and saw, a small reptile, sticking out his tongue. "It's the lizard!" said the birds in unison.
"Yes, my brother, but, I did not call you!" the crow responded, calmly. "I've been hearing your conversation, and I'm interested. Can I speak out too?" said the lizard. "Please brother, the chamber will always be there for you. Please, appear on the pulpit!" the crow invited.

A few moments later, having said the salaam, delivering the opening kalima, in an absurd voice, the lizard hummed,

Life is a mystery
Everyone must stand alone
I hear you call my name
And it feels like home *)

Then the lizard said, "This is neither a lecture, nor a philosophy lesson, but a conversations between two horsemen. The first horseman, riding a black horse, and the second horseman, riding a white horse. The first horseman said, "Next, compare our nature in respect of education and its lack to such an experience as this. Picture men dwelling in a sort of subterranean cavern with a long entrance open to the light on its entire width. Conceive them as having their legs and necks fettered from childhood, so that they remain in the same spot, able to look forward only, and prevented by the fetters from turning their heads. Picture further the light from a fire burning higher up and at a distance behind them, and between the fire and the prisoners and above them a road along which a low wall has been built, as the exhibitors of puppet shows have partitions before the men themselves, above which they show the puppets." The second horseman said, "All that I see."

The first horseman said, "See also, then, men carrying past the wall implements of all kinds that rise above the wall, and human images and shapes of animals as well, wrought in stone and wood and every material, some of these bearers presumably speaking and others silent." The second horseman said, "This is an unusual picture that you are presenting here, and these are unusual prisoners."

The first horseman said, "They are very much like us, humans. For, to begin with, tell me, do you think that these men would have seen anything of themselves or of one another except the shadows cast from the fire on the wall of the cave that fronted them?" The second horseman said, "How could it be otherwise, since they are forced to keep their heads immobile for their entire lives?" The first horseman said, "And what do they see of the things that are being carried along behind them? Do they not see simply these?" The second horseman said, "Certainly." The first horseman said, "Now, if they were able to say something about what they saw and to talk it over, do you not think that they would regard that which they saw on the wall as beings?" The second horseman said, "They would have to."
The first horseman said, "And now, what if this prison also had an echo reverberating off the wall in front of them? Whenever one of the people walking behind those in chains and carrying the things, would make a sound, do you think the prisoners would imagine that the speaker were anyone other than the shadow passing in front of them?" The second horseman said, "Nothing else!" The first horseman said, "All in all, those who were chained would consider nothing besides the shadows of the artifacts as the unhidden." The second horseman said, "That would absolutely have to be."

The first horseman said, "So now, watch the process whereby the prisoners are set free from their chains and, along with that, cured of their lack of insight, and likewise consider what kind of lack of insight must be if the following were to happen to those who were chained.
Whenever any of them was unchained and was forced to stand up suddenly, to turn around, to walk, and to look up toward the light, in each case, the person would be able to do this only with pain and because of the flickering brightness, would be unable to look at those things whose shadows he previously saw.
If all this were to happen to the prisoner, what do you think he would say if someone were to inform him that what he saw before were mere trifles but that now he was much nearer to beings; and that, as a consequence of now being turned toward what is more in being, he also saw more correctly?
And if someone were then, to show him any of the things that were passing by and forced him to answer the question about what it was, don't you think that he would be a wit's end and in addition would consider that what he previously saw, with is own eyes, was more unhidden than what was now being shown to him by someone else?" The second horseman said, "Yes, absolutely."

The first horseman said, "And if someone even forced him to look into the glare of the fire, would his eyes not hurt him, and would he not then turn away and flee back to that which he is capable of looking at? And would he not decide that what he could see before without any help, was in fact clearer than what was now being shown to him?" The second horseman said, "Precisely."

The first horseman said, "Now, however, if someone, using force, were to pull him, who had been freed from his chains, away from there and to drag him up the cave's rough and steep ascent and not to let go of him until he had dragged him out into the light of the sun would not the one who had been dragged like this feel, in the process, pain and rage?
And when he got into the sunlight, wouldn't his eyes be filled with the glare, and wouldn't he thus be unable to see any of the things that are now revealed to him as the unhidden?" The second horseman said, "He would not be able to do that at all, at least not right away."

The first horseman said, "It would obviously take some getting accustomed, I think, if it should be a matter of taking into one's eyes that which is up there outside the cave, in the light of the sun.
And in this process of acclimitization he would first and most easily be able to look at shadows, and after that, the images of people and the rest of things as they are reflected in water.
Later, however, he would be able to view the things themselves. But within the range of such things, he might well contemplate what there is in the heavenly dome, and this dome itself, more easily during the night by looking at the light of the stars and the moon, more easily, than by looking at the sun and its glare during the day." The second horseman said, "Certainly!"

The first horseman said, "But I think that finally he would be in the condition to look at the sun itself, not just at its reflection whether in water or wherever else it might appear, but at the sun itself, as it is in and of itself and in the place proper to it and to contemplate of what sort it is." The second horseman said, "It would necessarily happen The first horseman said, "And having done all that, by this time he would also be able to gather the following about the sun: that it is that which grants both the seasons and the years; it is that which governs whatever there is in the now visible region of sunlight; and that it is also the cause of all those things that the people dwelling in the cave have before they eyes in some way or other." The second horseman said, "It is obvious that he would get to these things -- the sun and whatever stands in its light -- after he had gone out beyond those previous things, the merely reflections and shadows."

The first horseman said, "And then what? If he again recalled his first dwelling, and the "knowing" that passes as the norm there, and the people with whom he once was chained, don't you think he would consider himself lucky because of the transformation that had happened and, by contrast, feel sorry for them?" The second horseman said, "Very much so."

The first horseman said, "However, what if among the people in the previous dwelling place, the cave, certain honors and commendations were established for whomever most clearly catches sight of what passes by and also best remembers which of them normally is brought by first, which one later, and which ones at the same time? And what if there were honors for whoever could most easily foresee which one might come by next?
Do you think the one who had gotten out of the cave would still envy those within the cave and would want to compete with them who are esteemed and who have power? Or would not he or she much rather wish for the condition that Homer speaks of, namely "to live on the land above ground as the paid menial of another destitute peasant"? Wouldn't he or she prefer to put up with absolutely anything else rather than associate with those opinions that hold in the cave and be that kind of human being?" The second horseman said, "I think that he would prefer to endure everything rather than be that kind of human being."

The first horseman said, "And now, I responded, consider this: If this person who had gotten out of the cave were to go back down again and sit in the same place as before, would he not find in that case, coming suddenly out of the sunlight, that his eyes ere filled with darkness?" The second horseman said, "Yes, very much so."
The first horseman said, "Now if once again, along with those who had remained shackled there, the freed person had to engage in the business of asserting and maintaining opinions about the shadows -- while his eyes are still weak and before they have readjusted, an adjustment that would require quite a bit of time -- would he not then be exposed to ridicule down there? And would they not let him know that he had gone up but only in order to come back down into the cave with his eyes ruined -- and thus it certainly does not pay to go up.
And if they can get hold of this person who takes it in hand to free them from their chains and to lead them up, and if they could kill him, will they not actually kill him?" The second horseman said, "They certainly will."

Paused for a moment, the the lizard said, "O my brothers and sisters, Socrates, as explained in the Republic of Plato, explained a parable of a cave to the people of Athens to explain the indoctrination process that was taking place in Ancient Greece. He explained a parable of people who were enchained in a cave, forced to look at shadows cast from a fire. He told them that if someone were to release them from their chains, they would be able to see the fire and recognize that what they had thought all along was real were merely shadows of artificial objects. Then they could leave the cave to find the true light. Just like us today, who believe a certain power to be a real power. The certain power we have in mind, is the shadow, and the artificial object is the impotent power. If they were unchained, they could see that it is a fake created by certain people.
Because Socrates was confronting their plan, he was tried for spreading revolutionary ideas and sentenced to death. In the same way, certain modern people are assassinated."
Then, after greeting with a salaam, the lizard immediately disappeared among the thickets. The crow, who had been listening, muttered, "Hmmm, some part of what he said, cannot be denied, and other part, cannot be said to be wrong. But apart from that, I remembered the words of the Prophet (ﷺ),

مَا مِنْ مَوْلُودٍ إِلاَّ يُولَدُ عَلَى الْفِطْرَةِ، فَأَبَوَاهُ يُهَوِّدَانِهِ أَوْ يُنَصِّرَانِهِ أَوْ يُمَجِّسَانِهِ، كَمَا تُنْتَجُ الْبَهِيمَةُ بَهِيمَةً جَمْعَاءَ، هَلْ تُحِسُّونَ فِيهَا مِنْ جَدْعَاءَ ‏"‏ ثُمَّ يَقُولُ ‏{‏فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا لاَ تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ ذَلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ‏}‏

'No child is born except on Al-Fitra and then his parents make him Jewish, Christian or Magian, as an animal produces a perfect young animal: do you see any part of its body amputated?"
Then he recited, 'Adhere to the fiṭrah of Allah upon which He has created all people. No change should there be in the creation of Allah. That is the correct religion, but most of the people do not know.' [Sahih Muslim]

And Allah knows best."

References :
- Plato, The Republic, translated by H. Spens DD, Glasgow
- Abu Esa Al Kanadi, The Secret World, Maktabah Al Ansaar Publications

*) Like a Prayer written by Leonard Patrick Raymond and Ciccone Madonna 

Bahasa

Sparta and Athens

Hoarse voice, the crow tried to sing,

Just gonna stand there and watch me burn?
Well that's alright, because I like the way it hurts
Just gonna stand there and hear me cry?
Well that's alright, because I love the way you lie *)

After greeting with a salaam, delivering the opening kalima, he said, "Two thousand five hundred years ago, two totally different city-states dominated Greece. Athens was an open society, and Sparta was a closed one. Athens was democratic, and Sparta was ruled by a select few. The differences were many.

Sparta began as a city-state of farmers. As the population grew, Spartans needed more land to farm. To get more, they invaded their neighbors, the Messenians. After a long war, they finally conquered the rich land of Messenia in 715 and made the Messenians their slaves. The Messenians outnumbered the Spartans by 10–1. Treated brutally, the Messenians rose in revolt in 650. It took almost 30 years for the Spartans to put down the revolt.
The revolt changed Sparta forever. Spartans felt that they had to control the Messenians. They saw only one way to do this: They built a strong army, which every male Spartan had to join.

The training lasted almost a lifetime. At birth, unfit babies were left to die. At age 7, boys had to left home and lived in barracks. They underwent training to make them strong and fearless. They made their own clothes and prepared their own meals. They learned how to fend for themselves.
At age 20, they went in the army. For the next 10 years, they remained in barracks as soldiers. They had to get married at 20, but did not live with their wives until age 30. They remained in the army until 60. Older men inspired the younger men. If duty called, they answered. The Spartan army was the fiercest in Greece.

Since the men’s only job was to fight, this left most of the other work to slaves and women. Slaves, and some free non-Spartans, tended the fields and did chores. Because Spartans feared another slave revolt, they did not allow slaves to go out at night With the men away for so long, the women took charge. As in other Greek city-states, they could not vote or hold office. But they could own land and even go to court. Women owned about one-third of Spartan land. They married older than other Greeks. They were known for standing up to their husbands. A famous Greek writer said that “the men of Sparta always obeyed their wives.”

Other Greeks thought Spartan women were shameless. They went out in public, talked with other people, and did not cover their legs. They exercised hard and competed in sports.
Like their husbands, they devoted their lives to Sparta. They wore no jewelry or fancy clothes. They married to have children who would fight for Sparta. It was said that Spartan mothers had a simple message when their sons left for war: “Come home with your shield or upon it.” In other words, return with the army alive or be killed in battle.

Life in Sparta was tough and dull. Even the food tended to be the same day after day. One outsider after tasting Spartan food said, “Now I know why Spartans don’t fear death.”
The government of Sparta consisted of a Council of 30. The council had 28 elders, who served for life, and two kings. The kings led the army. A citizen assembly elected five leaders, called “ephors,” each year. The ephors had total power during their time in office. They could even arrest the kings or elders.

Athens, was different in almost every way. Spartans did as they were told. Athenians loved their freedom. Sparta was ruled by a select few. Athenians were their own rulers. They debated and voted on laws in the Assembly. In their democracy, Athenians had duties. They had to obey the laws, serve in the military, help run the city, pay taxes, and serve on juries. A jury consisted of 500 or more citizens. If an Athenian broke the law or failed to live up to his duties as a citizen, he could be ostracized. This meant that he was forced to leave Athens for 10 years.

The land around Athens was difficult to farm. Athenians grew olive trees and grapes, but had to import food from other places. They built a trading society, selling olives, grapes, wine, pottery, and other goods. Athenians were known as fine craftsmen and artisans. The city of Athens impressed everyone. Its buildings and statues are still admired today.

Homes of the rich had courtyards and large rooms. Most people, however, lived in simple homes. Men spent most of the daylight hours outside the home. They worked. They went to the marketplace. They hung out in the streets. They played sports and talked at the gymnasium. They went to the theater and saw plays. When it got dark, they went home to eat and sleep. Women were expected to stay at home and do housework. They cleaned, cooked, and wove cloth. When a husband had guests, the wife was supposed to disappear into another part of the house. If women ventured out of the house, they covered themselves and wore veils to hide their faces. Rich women seldom left the house. Poorer women had to work outside the home.

Like most of the ancient world, Athens had slaves, who had been captured in wars. About 100,000 men and women slaves made up about a third of the population. Almost every home had at least one slave. The rich might have 50. Even so, other Greeks complained that Athenians treated their slaves as equals. This was not true, but they did treat them better than the Spartans treated their slaves.

Every year, Athenians held many festivals and contests. The rich paid for their cost. One festival honored Dionysus, the god of wine and drinking. Among other merrymaking at this festival, Athenians watched plays and judged which was the best tragedy and comedy. The Theater of Dionysus held 17,000 people. The performers wore large masks and a chorus of actors spoke many lines.

As a trading city, Athens sent its men to sea. To protect its ships, it built a navy. In time, it developed into the greatest naval power in Greece. It slowly gained control over other city-states. The Athenians experienced a major setback when a plague broke out in 430 BCE. Between one-third and two-thirds of the Athenian population died, including the prominent general Pericles.

In 431 BCE a war broke out between Athens and Sparta. It was called the Peloponnesian War. This is because Sparta was located on the Peloponnesian Peninsula. If you look at a map of Greece, you will see that the southern part of Greece is attached by a small strip of land. This southern part is called the Peloponnesian Peninsula.

The formation of the Delian League, or Athenian League, in 478 BCE. united several Greek city-states in a military alliance under Athens, ostensibly to guard against revenge attacks from the Persian Empire. In reality, the league also granted increased power and prestige to Athens. The Spartans, meanwhile, were part of the Peloponnesian League (550 BCE- 366 BCE) of city-states. It was only a matter of time before the two powerful leagues collided.

The Great Peloponnesian War, also called the First Peloponnesian War, was the first major scuffle between them. It became a 15-year conflict between Athens and Sparta and their allies. Peace was decreed by the signing of the Thirty Years Treaty in 445 BCE, effective until 437 BCE, when the Peloponnesian War began.

A civil war in the obscure country of Epidamnus led to the involvement of Sparta’s ally, Corinth. When Sparta was brought in to be part of conflict negotiations, Corinth’s longtime enemy Corcyra targeted Epidamnus and seized it in a naval battle. Corinth retreated to rebuild its fleet and plan retaliation.

In 433 BCE, the tension continued to build and Corcyra officially sought Athens’ support by arguing that conflict with Sparta was inevitable and Athens required an alliance with Corcyra to defend itself. The Athenian government debated the suggestion, but its leader Pericles suggested a defensive alliance with Corcya, sending a small number of ships to protect it against Corinthian forces.

All forces met at the Battle of Sybota, in which Corinth, with no support from Sparta, attacked and then retreated at the sight of Athenian ships. Athens, convinced it was about to enter war with Corinth, strengthened its military hold on its various territories in the region to prepare.

Sparta was hesitant to enter the war directly, but was eventually convinced by Corinth to do so, though this was not a popular decision among Sparta’s other allies. A year passed before Sparta took aggressive action. During that time, Sparta sent three delegations to Athens to avoid war, offering proposals that could be viewed as a betrayal of Corinth. These efforts conflicted with Pericles’ agenda and the Athenians rejected peace.

The first 10 years of the conflict are known as “Archidamian War,” after Spartan King Archidamus. The Spartan slogan for that period was “Freedom for the Greeks,” and its stated aim was to liberate the states under Athenian rule by destroying its defenses and dismantling its structure.

As Spartan forces surrounded Athens in a siege, decimating the countryside and farmland, Pericles declined to engage against them near the city’s walls, instead leading naval campaigns elsewhere. He returned to Athens in 430 B.C. as a plague ravaged the city, killing nearly two-thirds of the population. Pericles, following a political uprising that led to his censure, succumbed to the plague in 429 BCE, fracturing the Athenian leadership. Despite this major setback for the Athenians, the Spartans saw only mixed success in their war efforts, and some major losses in western Greece and at sea.

In 423 BCE, both sides signed a treaty known as the Peace of Nicias, named for the Athenian general who engineered it. Meant to last 50 years, it barely survived eight, undermined by conflict and rebellion brought on by various allies.

War reignited decisively around 415 BCE when Athens received a call to help allies in Sicily against invaders from Syracuse, where an Athenian official defected to Sparta, convincing them that Athens was planning to conquer Italy. Sparta sided with Syracuse and defeated the Athenians in a major sea battle.

Athens did not crumble as expected, winning a string of naval victories against Sparta, which sought monetary and weapons support from the Persian Empire. Under the Spartan general Lysander, the war raged for another decade. By in 405 BCE. Lysander decimated the Athenian fleet in battle and then held Athens under siege, forcing it to surrender to Sparta in 404 BCE.

The Peloponnesian War marked the end of the Golden Age of Greece, a change in styles of warfare, and the fall of Athens, once the strongest city-state in Greece. The balance in power in Greece was shifted when Athens was absorbed into the Spartan Empire. It continued to exist under a series of tyrants and then a democracy. Athens lost its dominance in the region to Sparta until both were conquered less than a century later and made part of the kingdom of Macedon.

From the start of the conflict to the outbreak of war between Sparta and Athens, it seemed that there were only these two great powers, but in n fact, the trigger for this war, was a hidden third party. Early in its history, Phoenician merchants from the coast cities of Accent Palestine, came to exploit the markets of Ancient Greece. Sparta resisted these foreigners so they were forced to settle in Athens. Through practices of money lending they built up their economic base, establishing themselves as a prominent merchant class rivalling the landed Greek aristocracy. To conduct the society to their desired objectives, they manipulated the Greek theatre, the most important cultural activity of Ancient Greece, which has been celebrated in the West ever since. Like modern television is used, the theatre was used to inculcate immorality.

Sparta aware of the corruptive influence of these foreigners, and to protect its money standard strongly resisted their penetration. To say something is spartan means that it is conservative or austere, as the Spartans were known for their discipline, trying to keep them from the moral decay that afflicted Athens. These foreign merchants now wanted to practice on Sparta what they had on Athens, this action brought about a war between the two cities, now known as the Peloponnesian Wars."

The crow was silent, then said, "O my brothers and sisters, of course there are still wars like this Sparta and Athens. For us, the war is not an open war, taking up arms and bloodshed, but a war of 'ilm and strategy, by maintaining common sense and nourishing our conscience.
And in closing, always remember that fifteen centuries ago, our beloved Prophet (ﷺ) delivered a shocking message,

لَتَتَّبِعُنَّ سَنَنَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ شِبْرًا بِشِبْرٍ وَذِرَاعًا بِذِرَاعٍ حَتَّى لَوْ دَخَلُوا فِي جُحْرِ ضَبٍّ لاَتَّبَعْتُمُوهُمْ

"You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also...." [Sahih Muslim]

References :
- Professor Kenneth W. Harl, The Peloponnesian War, The Teaching Company
- Abu Esa Al Kanadi, The Secret World, Maktabah Al Ansaar Publications
- Two Very Different City-States: Sparta and Athens, Constitutional Rights Foundation

*) Like The Way You Lie written by Alexander Junior Grant, Marshall Bruce Mathers and Holly Brooks 

Bahasa

Jesting about Love

The pigeon greeted with salaam, then hummed,

Oh my love for the first time in my life,
my eyes are wide open.
Oh my lover for the first time in my life,
my eyes can see.
I see the wind.
Oh, I see the trees.
Everything is clear in my heart.
I see the clouds.
Oh, I see the sky.
Everything is clear in our world.
Oh my love for the first time in my life,
my mind is wide open.
Oh my lover for the first time in my life,
my mind can feel.
I feel the sorrow.
Oh, I feel dreams.
Everything is clear in my heart.
I feel life.
Oh, I feel love.
Everything is clear in our world *)

After saying the opening kalimah, she said, "O my brothers and sisters, it is natural for people fall in and out of love and romance. It happens all around us. Love is one of the most talked about subjects in the media. There are many incidents of the love triangle that ultimately led to murder. Walk the streets and you’ll see people committing suicide just because of lost love. There are also, in other parts of the world, who are willing to cheat, skewing, and even lying, out of love, especially the love of power and wealth.
Views on love in the Muslim community range from the extremely liberal to the extremely conservative. Extremely liberal view said that love is good and everything related is ok prior to marriage. Extremely conservative view said that love is bad or the groom is only allowed to see his bride on the night of the wedding.

Love is a common denominator for mankind, however, it is a topic that is not really discussed in the masjids and is greatly misunderstood. Love, in reality, is one of the main things provided by Islam. The Prophet (ﷺ) provides many solutions for relationship issues. ‘Aisha was the most beloved to him. He fell in love with her when he was in his fifties. Narrated Abu `Uthman,

أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بَعَثَ عَمْرَو بْنَ الْعَاصِ عَلَى جَيْشِ ذَاتِ السَّلاَسِلِ قَالَ فَأَتَيْتُهُ فَقُلْتُ أَىُّ النَّاسِ أَحَبُّ إِلَيْكَ قَالَ ‏"‏ عَائِشَةُ ‏"‏‏.‏ قُلْتُ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ قَالَ ‏"‏ أَبُوهَا ‏"‏‏.‏ قُلْتُ ثُمَّ مَنْ قَالَ ‏"‏ عُمَرُ ‏"‏‏.‏ فَعَدَّ رِجَالاً فَسَكَتُّ مَخَافَةَ أَنْ يَجْعَلَنِي فِي آخِرِهِمْ‏.‏

"Alah's Messenger (ﷺ) sent `Amr bin Al As as the commander of the troops of Dhat-us-Salasil. `Amr bin Al- `As said, "(On my return) I came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, 'Which people do you love most?' He replied, `Aisha.' I said, 'From amongst the men?' He replied, 'Her father (Abu Bakr)'. I said, 'Whom (do you love) next?' He replied, "`Umar.' Then he counted the names of many men, and I became silent for fear that he might regard me as the last of them." [Sahih Al-Bukhari]

This testimony of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) occurred when he was in his 50's! The Prophet (ﷺ) is a human being just like us. His wives even used to perform practical jokes on him!

Every traditional scholar is more than just a serious fatwa giver as may be contrary to popular opinion. In fact, some of the ulama have said, “If you don't experience love, you're not a normal human being.” Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) is an example. His name is Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi. He was a great faqeeh and minister, but first and foremost, a human being. He wrote books on Aqeedah, Fiqh, Tafseer, and Different Sects. He was born as a follower of the Shafi' madhab and is known for reviving the Zhahiri madhhab. Ibn Hazm is one of the great scholars of our deen not just a great scholar of his generation. One of his contemporaries said the tongue of Ibn Hazm and the sword of Al-Hajjaj are like twin brothers. He would speak very harshly in his writings at times. But when it came to the topic of love, his writings would be very sensitive and emotional. He wrote an autobiography entitled, “The healing of the Souls.” In it, he talks about his connection with the Andalusian women of his time in addition to his own love story. You could feel the pain in his writing because how he fell in love with Qahramana then lost contact with her. He met her again many years later then lost her. After many years he found her but her appearance had changed due to her problems and sorrow.
Ibn Hazm becomes soft when talking about love; he doesn’t seem like the strict faqeeh that some imagine him to be. He believes that souls are scattered matters in heaven that meet and descend to earth and join together as soul mates. His theory of love is based on assimilations and similarity in characteristics between lovers; the first part is jesting and the last part is earnestness.

He also talks about noble love – passions of heart with righteousness and piety. Since he is a Zhahiri, he takes the literal meaning of love as noble love, not lustful love. He considers love as a sickness or an ailment; its remedy depends on the degree or severity of love from each side. Ibn Hazm said, "Love is natural, but can Allah test us with this? Yes, Allah always tests us to see our obedience to Him."

He also used to say, “Love –may Allah exalt you! - is in truth a baffling ailment, and its remedy is in strict accord with the degree to which it is treated; it is a delightful malady, a most desirable sickness. Whoever is free of it, likes not to be immune, and whoever is struck down by it, yearns not to recover. Love represents as glamorous that which a man formerly disdained, and renders easy for him that which he hitherto found hard; so that it even transforms established temperaments and inborn dispositions.”

How many of us like joking about love and falling in love. This might even occur between two potential spouses until they actually find themselves in love! Know that Love is not something to joke about or take lightly. It is one of the miraculous signs of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala.

وَ مِنۡ اٰیٰتِہٖۤ اَنۡ خَلَقَ لَکُمۡ مِّنۡ اَنۡفُسِکُمۡ اَزۡوَاجًا لِّتَسۡکُنُوۡۤا اِلَیۡہَا وَ جَعَلَ بَیۡنَکُمۡ مَّوَدَّۃً وَّ رَحۡمَۃً ؕ اِنَّ فِیۡ ذٰلِکَ لَاٰیٰتٍ لِّقَوۡمٍ یَّتَفَکَّرُوۡنَ

"And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought." [Qs. Ar-Rum (30):21]

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'aala states that His creation of men and women as mates to one another is a sign and favor over His creation. The creation of the heavens and the earth and how they stand by His command also as signs of His creation. Allah has drawn a parallel between these magnificent signs in the Universe and His creation of men and women as mates to one another. Love is also a sign of His Lordship, as important as that as the creation of the entire universe.

Love has a number of stages throughout which it transforms itself. It starts off as passionate love, then it transforms itself when the wife becomes pregnant and then transforms once again when there is children. When that passionate love goes away, people think that love no longer exists between the spouses. But indeed, love never dies. What happens in fact is, that love transforms itself. The most common understanding of love is passionate love, but there are other forms of love.
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), speaking about his wife Khadijah, said, "Verily, I was blessed with love for her” [Sahih Muslim].
The type of love that the Prophet (ﷺ) is speaking about is passionate love. The word for ‘love’ in Arabic is حب. The root of the word are the letters ب and ح. حcomes from deep in the throat, just like love which can be very deep and sometimes love is so deep it makes you choke; the sigh of love. بcomes from the lips and it's a very soft letter; one of the easiest letters in Arabic to pronounce. When you say the بit's like making a kiss and a kiss is a manifestation of love.

Fairy Tales, such as Cinderella, have played an important role in shaping people's views on what love is. In these Fairy Tales, love is all about beauty and physical attraction: the prince sees the girl and falls in love without even knowing her; they get married and "live happily ever after". The story always ends with the couple getting married and that's literally when the love ends. If these fairy tales, in all that matters, are based on a description like this, the concept is not quite right.
There are been different views over time what love actually is. Among others, love is physical interaction between a man and a woman. Others said that love is a philosophical idea. Love is psychological, one convinces themselves that they are in love. Love is spiritual; it is about finding your soul mate. Love is intellectual; love is an intellectual process. Most define love as sentiments and feelings towards someone else. Some Muslim philosophers agreed that love can be a sickness. There is also moral or religious love such as ones love for Allah and the Prophet (ﷺ). Also one’s love for fellow Muslims when you love them for the sake of Allah. But to keep your marriage successful, please don't tell your spouse you love them for the Sake of Allah, since it is natural that people in a marriage desire passionate love.
Rumi once wrote, "One went to the door of the Beloved and knocked. A voice asked, “Who is there?” He answered, “It is I.” The voice said, “There is no room for Me and Thee.” The door was shut.
After a year of solitude and deprivation, he returned and knocked. A voice from within asked, “ Who is there?” The man said, “It is Thee." The door was opened for him.

Many theories about love from the Muslim scholars. Imam Muhammad al-Ghazali (May Allah have mercy on him), wrote about love in his book Ihya'ul ulum al-din, "Revival of Religious Sciences" in a chapter called Adaab an-Nikaah or “The Etiquettes of Marriage”. He spoke of the relationship between man and woman, more about moral love. During his time, people exaggerated their moral love for the Divine. Imam Ghazali put restrictions on this concept and he also writes about the great fitna when you take love to an extreme passion.
Ibn Hazm states that Allah created human beings in the best example: perfection, When we say "beautiful" we mean it's perfect. So, beauty in the mind of human beings is a sign of perfection, and everyone in this life is looking for perfection.
Beauty is relative: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". What may be ugly for one person may attract another person, and vice versa. Sometimes, the opposites, attract. That can really affect what you think is beautiful. For example, fire and ice: if you hold ice in your hands and squeeze it hard enough, it will give a burning sensation, just like fire. So, opposites can be so opposite that they give the same effect.
He also mentions in Tawq ul-Hamamah, "The soul itself, being beautiful, is affected by all beautiful things, and has a yearning for perfect symmetrical images whenever it sees any such image, it fixes itself upon it; then, if it discerns behind that image something of its own kind, it becomes united and true love is established. If however the soul does not discover anything of its own kind behind the image, its affection goes no further than the form, and remains mere carnal desire."

Now, the question may arise, "Is falling in love, halaal or haraam? Does love happen by choice or by force; and will you be held accountable for it?" Falling in love is one of the strangest and most wonderful things a human being can experience. And while it’s different for everyone, there are some common thoughts and feelings that can help people identify when it’s happening.

The fact, love is a miraculous sign of Allah. Allah declares love to be an “ayah”, a miraculous sign, is significant. Anything declared as an ayah is something that is very important. It is not something trivial or to be taken lightly. He says,

وَ مِنۡ اٰیٰتِہٖۤ اَنۡ خَلَقَ لَکُمۡ مِّنۡ اَنۡفُسِکُمۡ اَزۡوَاجًا لِّتَسۡکُنُوۡۤا اِلَیۡہَا وَ جَعَلَ بَیۡنَکُمۡ مَّوَدَّۃً وَّ رَحۡمَۃً ؕ اِنَّ فِیۡ ذٰلِکَ لَاٰیٰتٍ لِّقَوۡمٍ یَّتَفَکَّرُوۡنَ

"And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you 'mawaddah wa rahmah' (affection and mercy). Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought." [QS. Ar-Rum (30):21]

Allah created us from one soul, and created our mate from that same soul in order that we may find peace and tranquility. He said,

ہُوَ الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَکُمۡ مِّنۡ نَّفۡسٍ وَّاحِدَۃٍ وَّ جَعَلَ مِنۡہَا زَوۡجَہَا لِیَسۡکُنَ اِلَیۡہَا ۚ فَلَمَّا تَغَشّٰہَا حَمَلَتۡ حَمۡلًا خَفِیۡفًا فَمَرَّتۡ بِہٖ ۚ فَلَمَّاۤ اَثۡقَلَتۡ دَّعَوَا اللّٰہَ رَبَّہُمَا لَئِنۡ اٰتَیۡتَنَا صَالِحًا لَّنَکُوۡنَنَّ مِنَ الشّٰکِرِیۡنَ

"It is He who created you from one soul and created from it its mate that he might dwell in security with her. And when he [i.e., man] covers her, she carries a light burden [i.e., a pregnancy] and continues therein. And when it becomes heavy, they both invoke Allah, their Lord, "If You should give us a good [child], we will surely be among the grateful." [QS. Al-A'Raf (7):189]

It was made beautiful to men, the love of women. Allah said,

زُیِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ حُبُّ الشَّہَوٰتِ مِنَ النِّسَآءِ وَ الۡبَنِیۡنَ وَ الۡقَنَاطِیۡرِ الۡمُقَنۡطَرَۃِ مِنَ الذَّہَبِ وَ الۡفِضَّۃِ وَ الۡخَیۡلِ الۡمُسَوَّمَۃِ وَ الۡاَنۡعَامِ وَ الۡحَرۡثِ ؕ ذٰلِکَ مَتَاعُ الۡحَیٰوۃِ الدُّنۡیَا ۚ وَ اللّٰہُ عِنۡدَہٗ حُسۡنُ الۡمَاٰبِ

"Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of women and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return [i.e., Paradise]." [QS. Ali 'Imran (3):14]

Natural love is allowed. If you don't experience love, then get up and go eat some hay, for you're a donkey! However, if it goes into the realm of worship, it is criticized. So, one who falls in love should not be blamed. It is a sign of their perfection, and of Allah's favors upon them. Every heart is in Allah's Hands", we can't say halaal/haraam, because it happens and we cannot control it. Ibn Hazm said, "Love is neither disapproved by Religion nor prohibited by law, for every heart is in Allah’s Hands.”

There are, at least, ten signs of love. First, the brooding gaze. The eye is the gateway of the soul, and so they can basically reveal your soul; Second, the lover will direct his conversation to his beloved; Third, the lover listens to his beloved's speech, and marvels at everything said- even if it is nonsense; Fourth, the lover hurries to the spot where his beloved awaits him; Fifth, the lover is overcome by a sudden confusion when beloved comes suddenly upon him; Sixth, the lover is abundantly and excessively cheerful at being close to his beloved. e.g in the beginning, they use the "love seat" so that they can be near each other; Seventh, they engage in playful tug-o-war. For example, in the beginning the husband offers to do the dishes, and the wife says, no, I'll take care of it. And they go back and forth, back and forth, until the dish falls and breaks. Then they both smile, and the husband offers to clean it up, and the wife says no, and they start all over again. However, later, the husband doesn't even bother to ask, he just expects his wife to do it, and if the dish breaks they start yelling at each other. Eigth, leaning toward each other. Nineth, touching. 'Aisha narrates that Rasulullah (ﷺ) would grab the hand of his wives when talking to them. Tenth, drinking from the same cup, and touching the lips on the exact spot where the beloved's lips touched. Rasulullah (ﷺ) would grab a piece of meat that 'Aisha had eaten from and then eat from the same spot as she. He would also grab her cup, after she had finished drinking from it, and turn the cup around, and place his lips on the exact spots her lips touched.

Finally, the primary stages of love are usually by choice; you choose to take this path, e.g.by looking, you can fall in love with an image. When you allow yourself to fall in love with someone, it then becomes by force because you cannot help it. Allah is in control of your heart. At this point, love is something you can't control. You will only be held accountable for that which you can control.
If we make a choice to do something haraam because of "love", then we will definitely be held accountable. If the love occurred totally by force, e.g. you fell in love with someone you were going to marry, however it did not work out; then it is a test of patience. Observe piety and righteousness, and may Allah help you!

Love, love alone can kill what seemed dead
The frozen snake of passion, love alone
By tearful prayers and fiery longing fed
Reveals a knowledge schools have never known.
And Allah knows best."

References:
- Sheikh Yasser Birjas, Love Notes, Almaghrib Institute
- Idries Shah, The Sufis, Anchor Books

*) Oh My Love, written by John Lennon 

Bahasa

Three Men in a Boat (4)

The man in hoodie continued, "This is quite sufficient to show that Islam and communism stand diametrically opposed to each other. How can the two be said to be the same, then? Islam stands for all that is good, healthy and desirable in life. It is the religion for all times, generations and societies. But as the Islamic world during the last four centuries has been in a state of constant depression, the portion of the Islamic law dealing with economic problems remained static.

The Muslims who believe in the Beneficence of Allah as well as His immense Grace embracing all His creatures and who believe that it is Allah Who sends to them His messengers to guide them aright and who believe that Islam is not subject to the economic exigencies but ascends far above them; how can such Muslims adopt with impunity the communism which holds that all the different stages of human progress are determined by the interplay of the opposing forces alone, thus leaving no place for Allah’s will or any other factor or initiative save that of economic existence, i.e., the pressure of need.

The communists adopted an aggressive attitude towards Islam in the East and cast various doubts about it. But when they found that this had rather increased Muslims’ attachment to Islam, they changed their strategy and resorted to fraud and deception. Thus, they reasoned that, “ Communism does not at all interfere with Islam, as it is basically just another name for social justice and stands for the responsibility of the state towards its citizens to provide them with the basic needs of life. Do you mean to say that Islam is opposed to social justice by alleging that it is opposed to communism? Surely Islam cannot oppose such a system based on social justice.”

This diabolical reasoning is similar to that resorted to by the imperialists before. They too had started with attacking Islam openly but when they found that it had only put the Muslims on their guard and were watchful, they resorted to another course. They said, “ The West is interested only in the spread of civilization in the East; how can Islam be against civilization when it is itself the father of civilization?” They assured the Muslims that they could adopt this Western civilization without giving up their fasting, prayers, and other practices, although they were sure that if the Muslims once succumbed to western civilization they would no longer be able to retain their Islamic character. Consequently, within a few generations this western civilization would overpower them once and for all. They proved right. Consequently, there arose a generation among the Muslims, after some time, who was completely ignorant about Islam, who rather felt a repulsion from it without any knowledge or reason whatsoever.

It is this very game of fraud and deception that the communists are playing today. They say that the Muslims can, at the same time, remain Muslims, can pray, fast, perform esoteric rituals, and adopt communism as an economic system, for it does not at all meddle with their religion. Why should they then hesitate in embracing it? But while thus arguing they know very well that Muslims will no longer remain Muslims if they once but succumbed to communist temptation. In such a case, they are sure to remould them in a few years’ time after their own philosophy of life and put an end to Islam and all what it stands for because the age we are living is one of rapid movement and dynamism which means that great changes can very easily be brought about in a comparatively very short period of time. But in spite of all these facts there are very many Muslims who willingly allow themselves to be hoodwinked by such a spurious reasoning as it provides them with an excuse to avoid hard struggle in carrying out their unpleasant duties as Muslims, and promises to free them from the cumbrous task of finding their own way, using their own reason and exerting themselves in constrictive activities. They would rather just like to sit down and enjoy idle dreams and let themselves be guided by others.

In principle, Islam does not oppose any system such that is basically not antagonistic to its principles and serves the Muslim community in solving problems arising out of the changed conditions of life.
The fact, however, is that communism does not at all see eye to eye, i.e., resemble Islamic ideology although it might in some respects superficially resemble Islam. The Muslim community which already possesses the best system cannot pass by Islam and instead adopt communism, capitalism or materialistic socialism though they might in certain respects appear to be similar to it."

The man in cardigan asked, "Can we in reality embrace communism and yet live on as Muslims?" The man in hoodie replied, "The answer is a big No, for, when we apply communism, erroneously or dishonestly described as being a purely economic system, we find that it is opposed to Islam in theory as well as in practice. Their collision is inevitable for the simple reason that it cannot be helped or avoided."

There was a moment of silence, the man in cardigan exhale, than said, "Well, to close our little talk today, I'd like to lay down some facts. Firstly, it must be well understood that Islam is not a mere ideological vision. It is, on the other hand, a practical system of life that fully appreciates all the genuine needs of mankind and offers means to realize them.

Secondly, in trying to meet the genuine requirements of man, Islam effects a perfect balance so far as the limitations of human nature would allow. It starts with the individual maintaining a balance between his requirements of body and soul, reason and spirit, and in no case allows one side to predominate the other. It does not suppress the animal instincts in order to make the soul ascend the higher planes, nor does it, in hankering after the bodily desires, make man stoop to the low level of mere animalism. It meets the physical and spiritual needs, both on a single higher plane, doing away with all the internal psychological conflicts that threaten the entity of human soul or set a part of it against the other parts. Thence it proceeds to achieve an equilibrium between the needs of the individual and those of the community. It allows not an individual to transgress other individuals, or the community. Nor does it allow the community to commit transgression against the individual. It also does not approve of one class or people to enslave another class or people. Islam exercises a beneficent constraint on all these mutually opposed forces, prevents them from coming into collision with one another, calling them all to join hands and co-operate for the general good of mankind as a whole.
Thus, Islam strikes a balance between different factors of society, between spiritual and temporal, economic and human factors. Unlike communism, it does not believe that economic factors (i.e. the material aspect alone), dominate the human existence. Nor does it contribute to what the pure spiritualists or idealists say claiming that spiritual factors of high ideals alone are sufficient to organize human life. Islam rather holds that not one or two but all these diverse elements put together form what is called human society; and that the best code of life is that which takes note of all these, making full allowance for body as well as reason and spirit and arranging them all in a framework of a harmonious whole.

Thirdly, it must always be kept in mind that Islam has an altogether independent existence of its own as a social philosophy as well as an economic system. Some of its outward manifestations may on the surface appear to resemble those of capitalism or communism, but in fact it is far from being the one or the other. It retains all the good characteristics of these systems yet is free from their shortcomings and perversions. It extols not individualism to that loathful extent that holds the individual as the basis of social order and says that freedom of the individual must in all circumstances be preserved and in no case interfered with by the community. Modern capitalism is based on the concept of the individual’s freedom to exploit the other including the community that upbrings and preserves him.

Islam, while emphasising the importance of society, does not go to the extreme. Islam strikes a balance between the two extremes — communism and capitalism. Recognizing the importance of both thus making harmony between the individual and the state so that individuals have the freedom necessary to develop their potentialities but not to transgress against others of their fellowmen, as also it gives to the community or the state that represents the organized community, vast powers to regulate and control the socio-economic relationships, so as ever to guard and maintain this harmony in human life. The basis of this whole structure as envisaged by Islam is the reciprocity of love between individuals and groups. It is not erected on the basis of malevolence and class conflict as the communist societies.

It may also be pointed out here that this unique system of life, as envisaged by Islam, did not originate as a result of any economic pressure, nor was it an outcome of some mutually conflicting interests of antagonistic groups of people. No, not only this but it was revealed to the world as the ordained system of life at a time when men attached no particular importance to the economic factors, nor did they know anything about social justice in the sense we know it in modem times. Both communism and capitalism are much later growths. As far as reformation in the social and economic spheres of human life is concerned, the basic needs of man— food, housing, and sexual satisfaction— with which the name of Karl Marx is generally associated as being the first to hold that it was the duty of the government to make provision for these basic needs of man. This is claimed as a great revolution in the history of human thought. But long before Karl Marx—fourteen hundred years ago—Islam had already proclaimed these very rights of the individual before the world.
This historical announcement of the fundamental human rights not only includes those voiced by Karl Marx, but it adds to them some more as well, without however necessitating any interclass hatred, bloody revolutions, and without, of course, rejecting all those human elements in life that do not fall under the above three heads: food, housing and sexual needs.

These are some of the salient features of the Islamic code of life. They are sufficient to prove that a religion with such laws and principles, and so comprehensive as to include the whole of the human existence, emotions, thoughts, actions, worship, economic dealings, social relationships, instinctive urges and spiritual aspirations— all arranged in the framework of a single harmonious but unique system of life, can never lose its usefulness for mankind. Nor can such a religion ever become obsolete as its objectives are the same as those of life itself and, therefore, destined to live on so long as there is life on this planet."

After a brief pause, seagull said, "O my brothers and sisters! I will not highlight anything from the conversation of the three men, I leave it to you. Hopefully, all of it, will bring benefit for all of us. In fact, there is no wrong enjoying what Allah has endowed, but it should not make us neglectful of the lurking dangers. And Allah knows best."

Reference :
- Muhammad Qutb, Islam the Misunderstood Religion, IIFSO
*) Iris, written by John Rzeznik 

[Part 1]

Bahasa

Three Men in a Boat (3)

The man in jacket, paused for a moment, pulled his arms out of the jacket pockets, folded his arms, then turned to the man in hoodie, looked at him and said, "You tell us!" The man in hoodie looked up, staring at the two men in front of him. He thought for a moment, then said, "Firstly, communism rests on a purely materialistic basis. It does not recognize anything save that perceived by sense organs. What is not perceivable by these sensory organs is unreal, nonsense and has no existence whatsoever or if it does exist it is so insignificant that onejneeds not at all bother about it. Engels said, “Matter is the only real thing in the world.” And the materialist argue, “Human reason is just a manifestation of matter which reflects the external material environment surrounding it.”

They go on to say that what is called soul does not at all have an independent existence of its own but is rather a product of matter. Thus, we see that communism is a purely materialistic ideology which ridicules all forms of spiritualism, dubbing them all as unscientific. Islamic ideology, on the other hand, declines to concede such a narrowing down of human spheres of activities or degrade man to such low levels of existence. It looks upon man as a being that aspires to soar high in the realms of spirit and thought although he walks on earth and possesses a physical body. Man’s needs are not to food, shelter and sexual gratification as Karl Marx claimed.

A question might at this stage be raised in the our minds, “How can this materialistic philosophy affect us when we shall have nothing to do with it? Shall we shall adopt only the economic program of communism and retain all our basic creeds, our Rabb, our Prophet (ﷺ), and our spiritual system? These cannot be affected by the economic program we might adopt as they are quite different from the things we have described and have independent entities of their own. Let none be under this illusion, for as the communists hold, there exists a strong affinity between the economic system and the basic creed, ideology and outlook upon life of a people. They cannot be viewed in isolation; they are closely interrelated, for they are based on the same economic system which is raised on a purely materialist philosophy of life as has been clarified by the communist pioneers Engels and Marx in their writings.

The communists, for instance, also believe in dialectical materialism. They hold that it is the conflict of the opposites, the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ or workers and capitalists, that is the only real though insidious factor behind all economic and human, progress that mankind has achieved so far starting from the first communist age and moving on to slavery, then feudalism, capitalism and then final communist age. It is with this very dialectical materialism that they justify their standpoint and prove the final emergence of communism as the victor out of the present ideological warfare. They claim that there is a close scientific relationship between communism and this theory of dialectical materialism, in which there is no place whatsoever for any concept of God, His messengers or their messages. In their arrogance they think that all these things are merely an outcome of the interplay of economic forces. They have no meaning or significance apart from the economic circumstances that engendered them. So, they lose all their importance in human life and are simply worthless in interpreting or defining life or determining its true objectives. The one and the only factor of importance is the means of production which, if changed, affects the whole human existence and revolutionises it. The fallacy and weakness of communists’ view of human history is amply proved by the fact that it fails to offer any adequate explanation of the great revolution brought about by Islam in Arabia, for it cannot point out any change in the means of economic production in the Arabian peninsula or even in the whole of the contemporary Islamic world that might be referred to as having caused the emergence of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) in that part of the world bringing with him a completely new system of life.

Secondly, man as viewed by communism is just a passive being whose will has no importance whatever in the face of the material and economic forces. Karl Marx said, “The mode of production conditions the whole process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, it is their social existence that determines their consciousness.”

In Islam, on the other hand, we find that man is viewed as an active being with a free will of his own that is subject to the higher will of Allah alone. Thus Islam makes it clear that it is man who enjoys supreme power and position on this earth with all the material and economic forces being there to do his bidding. Islam itself is a case in point in this respect. Its progress was not limited to or directed by any process of dialectical materialism. The early Muslims never, even for a single moment, felt that the economic existence of man alone played a decisive role in shaping his destiny or that it was something beyond his conscious control as Marx said. They, on the contrary, did consciously shape their economy in accordance with the guidance of Allah and His Messenger (ﷺ) basing all their social relationships on the teachings of Islam. They freed slaves without any consideration of economic gains or initiative inducing them to it; and they did in fact never witness the establishment of feudalism in their lands although it had been the most prevalent system for centuries in Europe and in the world at large.
The adoption of communist economy must inevitably lead to the adoption of the communist philosophy, the philosophy which makes man a mere tool of the economic forces that take their way quite independent of men’s will for they can neither change their course nor can they affect their working in any way as it is simply impossible and, therefore, unthinkable.

Thirdly, Communists and their likes insist that private ownership is not a natural propensity. They claim that there was no private property in the earliest societies where the “first communism” prevailed. All things, they say, were public property shared by all people who were guided by a spirit of affection, co-operation and brotherhood. The sadly regret that such “an angelic-era” did not last because the discovery of agriculture involved disputes over the cultivated land and the means of production. This inevitably led to waging wars. The communists allege that humanity can put an end to this dreadful evil only by returning once more to “the first communism” where no one had a property of one’s own and all production was equally shared by all people. They believe that this is the only way to restore peace, affection and harmony to the world.
On the other hand, psychologists and sociologists do not agree upon a clear distinction between natural and acquired human emotions, concepts and manners. Likewise they differ regarding private ownership. Some psychologists and sociologists maintain that private ownership is a natural propensity bom with man regardless of the conditions of his environment. Others believe that it is acquired through man’s environment. A child, they say, refuses to part with any of his toys either because they are too few or because he fears that another child may take them. When there is just one toy for ten children, quarrel is sure to break out, but, they say, where there are ten toys for ten children everyone will have a toy of his own and there will be no conflict.

The communists allege that private ownership has been coupled throughout the ages with injustice and, therefore, if humanity wants to maintain peace and rid itself of bitter conflicts it must abolish private ownership. But communists seem to forget two important facts, that individual efforts contributed to the progress of humanity, and, that no progress had been achieved during the so-called “ angelic era” of “ the first communism.” It can be said that humanity started to make some progress only after the existence of conflict over ownership. This means that such conflict is not after all an absolute evil. On the contrary its existence, within reasonable limits, is a psychological, social and economic necessity.
In addition to this, it should be borne in mind that Islam does not take it for granted that private ownership underlies all the injustice which afflicted humanity. The serious injustice that accompanied private ownership in Europe and other non-Islamic countries in general was due to the fact that the propertied classes in those countries were themselves the legislators as well as the rulers. It was only natural that such a class should make the legislations that safeguarded its interests at the expense of the other classes.

Islam does not recognize the existence of a ruling class. In Islam, laws are not made by a specially privileged class. It is beyond imagination that Allah should favour some individuals or classes at the expense of others. What reasons could He have for such favouritism? According to Islam, the ruler is freely elected by all the Muslims. He is not nominated to office by virtue of any class consideration. After assuming the duties of his office, the ruler must follow a law which he did not make, a law that everyone knows and was revealed by Allah Himself. In this connection, we may quote a saying by Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, “Obey me as long as I obey Allah in my rule over you, but where I disobey Allah, you shall not obey me.” A ruler in Islam has no legal power authorizing him to confer upon himself or others any legislative privileges. He has no power to prefer one class to another or to act in response to the political influence of the propertied class by enacting legislations which safeguard its interests while oppressing other classes.
It should be pointed out that when we talk about Islamic rule, we refer to that period in Islamic history wherein the principles and instructions of Islam were fully applied in their true sense. We do not refer to the periods when corruption changed the system of rule into monarchy. Islam does not recognize such governments nor can it be held responsible for such rule.

That Islamic rule with all its justice and idealism remained in force only for a brief era should not mean that it is an imaginary system unfit for practical application. After all, what was successfully applied once may be applied again, and it is the duty of all people to work hard for the restoration of such an era. The present time, however, is more propitious than ever for reestablishment of Islamic rule.
Under Islamic rule, the propertied classes will not be given the chance to make laws which serve their only interests. Islam prescribes that all people must be treated according to the same laws without any discrimination regarding human rights or dignity. In case of any differences as to the interpretation of some provisions of law— which happens with respect to every law on earth— the jurisprudents will have the last word. It is to be recorded with pride that the great Muslim jurisprudents did never interpret any law in a manner which might serve the interests of the propertied classes at the expense of the poorer ones. On the contrary, they have always been especially inclined to satisfy the basic demands of the working classes and to give them their full due. In fact, some Muslim jurisprudents went so far as to regard the workman or the peasant to be in partnership, as far as profits are concerned, with his employer.

On the other hand, Islam does not rate human nature so low as to take it for granted that ownership will always inevitably lead to injustice and oppression. In the field of refining and educating human nature, Islam achieved an unmatched success. Some Muslims owned property yet, they willingly shared their own property with others without expecting any return save forgiveness and recompense from Allah.
It should be understood that Islam never wants us to live in a world of dreams nor does it make the public interests wholly dependent on uncertain “ good intentions.” Despite its excessive care for the purification and refinement of souls, Islam never forgets practical considerations. Islamic legislation ensures a fair distribution of wealth. By not only concentrating on the purification of the soul but also enacting just legislation, Islam lays the proper foundations for a healthy world. Islam permitted ownership of land but never allowed it to lead to feudalism. Islam took the necessary precautions by enacting economic and social legislations which precluded feudalism and ensured a respectful standard of living even for those who did not own any land. It was such a guarantee that protected the poorer class from exploitation by the propertied one.

If we accept communism as an economic programme, we must also inevitably embrace along with that its social philosophy which states that society is the only real thing, the individual having no importance whatever save as a member of a community. This is a position quite contrary to that taken up by Islam, for Islam’s position attaches great importance to the individual and relies more upon him than on society for the realization of its ends. Islam civilizes man from within so that he would willingly discharge all his responsibilities as a member of a community. Thus, it elevates man to the position of a conscious member of society with a will of his own, freely choosing his own job as well as the place where he would like to work. He has the choice to comply with the orders of the niler or to refuse to obey him if the ruler should happen to transgress the bounds set by obedience to Allah and is practising Islam. Thus Islam makes every individual a guardian of the community’s morals besides holding him responsible for the eradication of all forms of evils. But such a thing cannot for obvious psychological and practical reasons happen in a society wherein the individual is reduced to the status of an insignificant midget or a worthless manikin whose destiny is solely shaped and controlled by the government as it alone controls all economic means of production.

Last, we must also remember that the communist philosophy is based on the assumption that it is the economic factor alone that is supreme so far as the determining or moulding of the diverse social relationships within a social group are concerned. Islam does not deny or under-rate the importance of the economic factor in human life nor does it ignore the importance of a sound economic basis for the social life of a community so as to make the moral and social virtues flourish. But it does not at all contribute towards the notion that life is but economics. It also does not believe that if economic problems are solved all the other problems of the society will also be solved as a result thereof.
The communist economy rests on a full-fledged dictatorship of the proletariat, which means that the state alone decides as to the functions performed by different citizens without any regard whatsoever to their respective aptitudes or likings. The state alone controls all thought, acts, associations as well as the ends to be realised by them. At this point we must also differentiate between the dictatorship of a single ruler and the dictatorship of the state, proletariat. For, in the case of a ruler, it is just possible that he be of a congenial, modest character with the welfare of his country being very dear to his heart and may even at times condescend to consult with the representatives of the people — real or false—before deciding on a matter or enacting a law. But all these possibilities are simply out of question in the case of a dictatorship of the proletariat or state, as it will primarily be concerned with the economics alone and the realization of economic ends, and will do so with an iron hand. That is what is signified by the very name—dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Part 4]

[Part 2]

Bahasa