If one says &quot;keeping up the articles of Magna Carta, rather than resort to catastrophic violence on the part of the powerful outlawed states, would likely help lessen some of the chaos in today&#x27;s world&quot;, does it imply that one is physically calling to go back to the thirteenth century? Similarly, Americans calling to restore the fourth amendment may not mean taking the clock back to the nineteenth century. Salafism in essence doesn&#x27;t mean any different within the relevant conceptual framework.<p>In the world of Fukuyama et al, rather than a basic religious worldview with precise tenets, is there a solid framework of meaningfully defining&#x2F;determining good&#x2F;triumph&#x2F;progress? How&#x2F;why does it matter in the long run whether or not a bunch of Amoeba get transformed into more complicated organisms, or hot elementary particles end up forming heavy atoms and structures, or killing and chaos spreads among the humans a la world war II? From a materialistic&#x2F;nihilistic standpoint, everything -- or nothing, for that matter -- can be viewed as triumph or end of some (part of) history (or not).<p>Islam in the 19th century was no more and no less than what it was before, but the Muslims were (and still are) trying to come to terms with the colonial destructions and ensuing effects.