“In the middle ages majority of Europeans believed that Bible and New Testament should be read literally.”

Wrong. I don’t think someone with a self-serving cartoon concept of Christianity is going to have any more accurate view of Islam. (Not “Islamism”, by the way – there is no ‘Islamism’, there is only Islam. ‘Islamism’ is an invented word adopted by Daniel Pipes after 9/11 to try to shove Islam’s Original Sin onto some more acceptable scapegoat.)

As Chesterton said, “I have tried in vain to hammer into the head of Mr. H.G. Wells, for instance (if I may allude to so large and illustrious a head in so irreverent an image) the perfectly elementary historical fact that the mystic and partially symbolic interpretation of Scripture is the old and orthodox interpretation of it; and that the mania for materialistic exactitude is a modern mania. At the very beginning of Christian history, St. Augustine said that some things in Scripture must be read as symbols, and that it was puerile to do anything else. But right at the end of Christian history, Brigham Young and the Mormons refused to see anything symbolic even in God’s eye or right hand; and insisted that He must physically exist, like a sort of giant. A certain margin of mystical interpretation was an idea perfectly familiar to the Fathers and Schoolmen; and it was not their fault, or the fault of the Bible, if the idea was less familiar to Billy Brimstone, the saved Bootlegger of Kansas City, or Freeze-the-Devil Debora, the sweet and winning Prophetess of Potluck, Neb.”