Early Salafism was not anti-state or revolutionary

Evidence

However, even at this stage, Islamic revivalism and Salafist thought in particular had little to say about the state, beyond its role in applying Sharia. They issued no wholesale condemnation of Muslim governments and therefore no call to overthrow these governments—such a turn within Salafism occurred only later in the twentieth century. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 305

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The modern period also brought about a new ‘fundamentalist’ movement, which came with a reinterpretation of Islam and its own stance on jihad. The fundamentalists tended to focus less on legal arguments and more on the moral justifications and the underlying ethical values of the rules of jihad. Unlike modernist scholars, fundamentalists do not believe that jihad can be divided into ‘offensive’ and ‘defensive’ jihad. In their view, jihad is universal revolutionary struggle and that the modernists’ search for moral justifications for jihad is senseless because jihad is prescribed by the Qur’an. At the same time, fundamentalists say that there are offensive and defensive aspects of jihad. According to fundamentalists, the offensive aspect is to resist all states and governments that govern according to principles contradictory to those of Islam, especially if the principles on which they govern are founded on the sovereignty of people. Fundamentalists define the defensive aspect of jihad as: first, the importance of protecting Islamic-owned territory with the intent of expansion and second, the fact that Islam protects people from anything that hinders their freedom and emancipation. Many contemporary fundamentalists were influenced by Ibn Taymiyya and Sayyid Qutb’s perspectives on jihad. This is evident in the Wahhabi movement, founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the 18th century, who was greatly influenced by Ibn Taymiyya. The Wahhabi movement accepted Ibn Taymiyya’s doctrines regarding jihad, such as labeling anyone not adhering to one’s (i.e., the Wahhabis’) particular interpretation of Islam an unbeliever. Ibn Taymiyya’s doctrines about jihad are also accepted by ISIS, who strongly believe in the armed struggle aspect of jihad against non-Muslims and even Muslims who do not adhere to their interpretation of Islam.; Islamist movements were politically marginal for the first century and a half — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 308; Political Islam parallels other modern fundamentalisms rather than stemming from Islam’s essence — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 285 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Islamist movements were politically marginal for the first century and a half #corroborates (0.65) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 308
• Political Islam parallels other modern fundamentalisms rather than stemming from Islam’s essence #corroborates (0.60) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 285
• The Algerian War was anticolonial, not religious, yet seeded later jihad #corroborates (0.55) — Horne, Alistair, A Savage War of Peace- Algeria 1954-1962, 47