The way you use orientalist seems like a strawman to me. I am all about being careful of orientalism as a search for exotism rather than serious intellectual and spiritual inquiry. But using terms such as "wahabi" or "conservative" is not necessarily judgmental (maybe a bit in OP's message, but even there I would avoid overinterpreting) - they just describe a particular stance regarding the scriptures. While it is true that muslim literalism has bad reputation in the West, using the term can be done outside of a progressist normative framework.

My understanding is that Wahabism is a very important aspect of modern Islam, even in countries of Soufi tradition, auch as Morocco. As a mystically inclined person it rubs me the wrong way, but I am fine with anyone deciding to follow that path.

It seems however to be fundamentalist in the bad sense of the word to assume that the Wahabi doctrine is the only proper interpretation of Islam. Wahabism is a relatively recent (and human!) creation, and multiple and conflicting interpretations of the scriptures are part of Islam since its very beginning - just take the Shia vs Sunni interpretations as an example. Even assuming that the Q'ran is God's word and the ultimate truth, we are still only imperfect humans trying to interpret it. Any interpretation in itself can only be imperfect, and it is the sign of a healthy tradition when conflicting interpretations can coexist and cross-fertilize. The humility that is part of devotion should also allow to be humble about one's own capacity to understand the truth.