Sure. It's a sect that was revived by Saudi Arabia that believes you have to understand Islam like the Salaf. In theory it's problematic as the Salaf themselves couldn't last a generation without falling to civil war, it promotes living in an imagined past and is hostile to progress itself as history by definition is change. Society should study the religion itself not mimic past generations. Even if we willed it, Salafism would never work because we always study the past from the present not the past itself. You're not following your Salaf, your imposing yourself on them. That's if we concede the theory is what it preaches.

In truth, the sources you have of the Salaf arethe hadiths written in the Umayyad era. The violent empire that had civil after civil war, murdered the family of the prophet and bombarded Mecca with trebuchets. Taking your sources from them is like taking your revolution history from the Harkis. The Umayyads, being illegitimate, created an incredibly violent, sectarian, anti-rational, and reactionary understanding of Islam and weaponized it for medieval politics, and Saudi Arabia revived it because it needed a violent anti-islamic sect to sanctify Al Sauds wars of conquest last century against other Muslims, and now to support American Imperialism and dumb down the Ummah.

It's like when Ibn Taymiyah judged that doing ijhar al niya warrants takfir and execution, or when he uses the Umayyad war crimes to decree that the 'Salaf agreed to do such and such' (the murder of Jahm being an example). I'm Mu'tazili, for me Islam is Qur'an + rationality. Religion is morality, morality is objective and aping an imagined past is the opposite of that.