/lit/ - Literature

>>17700353
The author was invited to the White House by George W. Bush, and he accepted was graciously hosted there

Does anyone else feel like the constant adoption of books to film is perverting the medium? Of books I mean? The more I read contemporary books the more it feels like I'm "reading a movie", they're written as if the author is thinking like a director

Is Roger Scruton right? Does Qutb's thought pose the greatest danger to the west?

From his book How to be a Conservative

>Our national narrative may change, but what underlies it is something that remains always in place: the secular law. We who have been brought up in the English-speaking world have internalized the idea that law exists to do justice between individual parties, rather than to impose a uniform regime of commands. Other Western systems have also reinforced the attachment of citizens to the political order – notably Roman law and its many derivatives (the code napoléon among them). It was evident from the earliest days of Christianity that the New Testament was not an attempt to replace the law of the imperial power, but an attempt to make a space for spiritual growth within it. In his parables, Christ emphasized that the secular law is to be obeyed, and that our duty to God does not require us to defy or to replace it. Nor should we pay too much attention to the finicky edicts of the Torah, since ‘the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath’.

>To someone raised on the doctrine that legitimate law comes from God, and that obedience is owed to Him above all others, the claims of the secular jurisdiction are regarded as at best an irrelevance, at worst a usurpation. Such is the message of Sayyid Qutb’s writings, and of Milestones (ma‘alim fi’l tariq, 1964) in particular. In that book, Qutb denounces secular law, national identity and the attempt to establish a purely human political order without reference to the revealed will of God: all are blasphemous in Qutb’s eyes. Qutb’s followers have included Osama Bin Laden and his successor Ayman al-Zawahiri

>Anybody who understands what is at stake in the global conflict that is developing today will, I believe, come to see that the nation is one of the things that we must keep. In what follows, therefore, I shall be appealing to people who identify their political rights and duties in national terms, and who have learned to put God in the place where He belongs.

He goes on to describe Islam as standing against and the biggest threat to all the core western values

Reading group is starting. The first chapter, the first Surah, is al-Fatiha. Here is Pickthall's translation

>1 In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
>2 Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,
>3 The Beneficent, the Merciful.
>4 Master of the Day of Judgment,
>5 Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.
>6 Show us the straight path,
>7 The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.

I will be going over it in the Arabic in detail on the voice chat at 5PM Pacific time today
https://discord.gg/PQsYPg

This chapter is considered the most eminent of the Qur'an. It is recited (vocally or silently depending) multiple times with every prayer. It is the Muslim equivalent to the Lord's Prayer

>>14784445
>I'm too cowardly to resist Shaytan from taking over my country but I will call this cowardice and the rise of liberalism "turning the other cheek"

Wallahi Christians invert noble values

Has anyone read Foucault's "History of Sexuality"?

>At issue, rather, is the type of power it brought to bear on the body and on sex. In point of fact, this power had neither the form of the law, nor the effects of the taboo. On the contrary, it acted by multiplication of singular sexualities. It did not set boundaries for sexuality; it extended the various forms of sexuality, pursuing them according to lines of indefinite penetration. It did not exclude sexuality, but included it in the body as a mode of specification of individuals. It did not seek to avoid it; it attracted its varieties by means of spirals in which pleasure and power reinforced one another. It did not set up a barrier; it provided places of maximum saturation. It produced and determined the sexual mosaic. Modern society is perverse, not in spite of its puritanism or as if from a backlash provoked by its hypocrisy; it is in actual fact, and directly, perverse. In actual fact.

Why did this book outrage Roger Scruton so much? Because it was critical of the Enlightenment whereas Scruton likes the Enlightenment?