Exploring the Relation between Violence in Islamic Fundamentalism and the Ideas of Ibn Taymiyya and Sayyid Qutb

The issue of religious fundamentalism and terrorism is a critical and pressing concern for Islamic countries and, indeed, the entire world today. When exploring the roots of these phenomena, attention must be given to the ideological foundations and the specific interpretations of religion and tradition adopted by fundamentalist Islamic groups. These groups consider their particular interpretation of religion to be the only legitimate and valid one, rejecting any opposing views by labeling them as heresy or polytheism and deeming them unjustifiable. According to the majority view, Ibn Taymiyya and Sayyid Qutb are the intellectual fathers and most influential figures shaping Islamic fundamentalist groups, often referred to as “Salafi,” “terrorist,” or extremist Islamist groups. While the intellectual influence of these two thinkers on Islamic fundamentalism cannot be overlooked, a deeper examination reveals significant differences between their ideas and the militant approaches, as well as certain theoretical aspects, of these groups. The primary aim of this articleis to clarify and understand the relationship between the violent actions of Muslim fundamentalists and the ideas of Ibn Taymiyya and Sayyid Qutb. The violence employed by fundamentalist groups can be categorized into three types: reactive violence, in response to restrictive and oppressive government actions; ideological violence, as a strategic approach of radical ideological Islamic groups; and sectarian violence, characterized by widespread violence targeting civilian targets. The violence of the Islamic fundamentalist groups discussed in this article primarily falls within the second and, in particular, the third categories.The main research question is whether the type and extent of violence employed by these groups can be justified by referencing the ideas of the two aforementioned thinkers. The research hypothesis is that the type and extent of violence used by these groups can hardly be justified through the ideas of these two intellectual figures; rather, significant evidence in their works contradicts such violence. The approach of this article is text-centered, with consideration of the historical and social context, and the method employed is analytical-interpretive, relying on library documents and sources. Key points of divergence between the ideas of the two thinkers studied in this article and theviolent actions of Islamic fundamentalist groups include the avoidance of widespread excommunication (takfir) of Muslims, the prohibition of indiscriminate killing, particularly of the People of the Book, the emphasis on preserving Islamic unity, and the necessity of combating external enemies. Therefore, the article’s final conclusion supports the research hypothesis.