Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) is widely regarded as one of the most influential theorists of the radical Islamist discourse. Yet, despite a significant body of literature, Qutb’s work was never discussed from the perspective of political theology. Consequently, this paper proposes a fresh approach to the Qutbian discourse as a seminal example of a political theology of resistance focused on God’s Sovereignty (Hakimiyyah) and engaged in a complex relationship with axiological, political and religious modernity. My working hypothesis is that Qutb’s vision of God’s Sovereignty (Hakimiyyah) as the only alternative to all forms of human based sovereignty is essential for a particular tradition of anti-modern political theology that until recently was considered a Western monopoly. Here I argue that the specificity of the Qutbian political theology could be better understood via a comparative framework which takes into account the interplay between similarity and difference between commensurable discourses criticizing a shared secular modernity. Consequently, drawing on J. Z. Smith’s comparative exegesis, Martin Riesebrodt’s comparative fundamentalisms and Jan Assmann’s comparative political theology, I employ a family resemblance model comparing Qutb’s critique of modernity with a neo-Calvinist political theology. More precisely, Qutb’s Islamist political theology is compared with the anti-modern political theology developed at the fringes of the modern American evangelical discourse by another noted, yet understudied, political theologian of God’s Sovereignty: Rousas Rushdoony (1916-1991). This paper will show how Qutb and Rushdoony forged a systematic foundationalist political theology of God sovereignty that carries a totalist, militant and praxis oriented political vision which aims to re-enchant the world in distinct political terms, while rejecting the autonomy of the political. Qutb’s Hakimiyyah and Jahiliyyah and Rushdoony’s Theonomy-focused Christian Reconstructionism will appear as two dimensions of the same tradition in political theology that places God's sovereignty at the center of a worldview that is incommensurable with a secularized world and its master ideologies. They reject the post-Westfalian paradigm that made the State an independent entity from God sovereignty and conceptualized politics as a sui generis reality, and religion qua private devotion. Moreover, both are fundamentally hostile towards what they see as the modern fetishization of instrumental reason and the idolatry of man-made formulas of sovereignty. Finally, I will demonstrate that, despite some pervasive readings, Qutb’s and Rushdoony’s perspectives are theocentric not theocratic, future oriented not ruins-gazing, criticizing modernity from within, using modern concepts and rhetorical strategies, and this constitutes an essential explanation for their perennial influence.