The problem with the article on ISIS in the Atlantic Monthly: on the worst kind of vulgar and crude Orientalism

Here is the crux of the problem with this long article.  This sentence: "Every academic I asked about the Islamic State’s ideology sent me to Haykel."   He must have been talking to Fox News a lot who must have sent him to Haykel, who offered those opinions: "According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts...Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. “Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,” Haykel said. Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”"  But what is interesting is that Haykel, refuses the analogy between Wahhabis and ISIS and is keen--interestingly enough--on absolving the Saudi royal family: "Haykel sees an important distinction between the groups, though: “The Wahhabis were not wanton in their violence.” "  The last verdict is purely a political verdict. But let us go to his notion that Islam is not a religion of peace (does that mean that Judaism and Christianity are religions of peace, by the way?): he says that ISIS didn't distort Islam.  OK. How come this phenomenon has not sprouted (outside of Saudi Arabia and without GCC money) elsewhere? Why has not ISIS or Al-Qa`idah become mainstream for all Muslims then?   Why are Muslims freely on social media--and without prodding by any government--not only denouncing but also mocking ISIS and the caliph, Baghdadi?  If Islam is what Islam do, why aren't Muslims become more engaged with the crimes of ISIS?  What is the "integral part of their texts?  This guy has done worse than Lewis (who at least has a vast amount of historical knowledge which he uses for political ends) in doing exactly what Edward Said had warned about in Orientalism: finding that evidence derived from a medieval text is preferable to evidence derived from the actual lives of Muslims.  If Haykel is of the opinion that Islam is medieval texts or even Qur'anic texts, strictly interpreted, he should read Maxime Rodinson's Islam and Capitalism. Someone should tell Haykel that there are commercial banks using usury in most Muslim countries and that current Muslims even use ATM machine.  Wait: were ATM machine mentioned in the Qur'an? Current Muslims need to know before they use them.