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