Well, here's the issue - how did you decide what was orthodox? By reading the National review's assessment of what Islamic texts support.
Muslims, however, don't consider the National Review to be authoritative. Nor is most of what they do consider religiously authoritative interpretations readily available in english. Of course, the pronouncements of their authorities are pretty standard (as Micro points out) for a Judeo-Christian view: no killing innocent people. I'm not sure how you can discard that for the religious analysis of the National Review, as smart as whoever wrote that might be.
Thanks for playing, but you are wrong on all your assumptions.
I owned a couple different paperback Korans in HS and read them. Went to college, studied the Carolingians, read Pirenne's Mohmmed & Charlemagne, & sought out all sorts of mo-temporaneous materials with a focus on histories of Mo. Got a pretty decent grounding before reading this week's National Review.
As for contemporary religious authorities, most of the bigs in the ME seem just fine with killing non-combatants. Heck, even a "moderate" invited to the White House ended up going all jihadi. Then, of course, are the Muslims I have worked with in the 'states, most of whom were genocidal anti-semites under their veneer of civilization and education(0).
All the big local Muslim religious authorities are of like mind, some even going so far as to endorse the worst bits of the Iranian regime, endorse wife-beating & the killing of homosexuals. They have done so in public, both in their own printed advertisements, and verbally in front of these odd critters called "journalists," who record them and tell the rest of us about it. When their co-religionists are nabbed for materially assisting terrorist, the religious authorities and largest local mosques support them.
SS, your words don't count for much relative to all that.
(0) Turks excluded, as I have yet to meet an immigrant Turk with such views.