Well, people seem to be ignoring one of the root causes, which is just as strong as the influence of Salafism, which is the threat of the West, which is an actual thing, not just some imaginary demon used by rulers to justify dictatorships (Iran is actually a favorite amongst Khaleeji Arab rulers for this role, not Israel or America surprisingly). This supports the surviving Ottoman Empire as a way for the Middle East to combat this threat, which has the added benefit of putting the coffers that come from oil into the hands of the relatively liberal Ottomans, as opposed to the backwards Saudis.
The Cracked article raises an important point, that a lot of the puritanical aspects of modern day Islam are actually fairly recent, and sometimes overstated in importance. Case in point, the thin black robe worn by women in the Gulf, the Abaya, often seen as traditional clothing, is only a relatively recent Iranian import, and traditional Khaleeji clothing is much more colourful. Lots of evidence can be found to support the view that Arab women in the Ottoman empire were not a group of Niqabi's either. The more "puritanical" things come from Saudi Arabia, and Islamic Iran (which was partly caused by Western intervention).
I don't really think the poverty argument cuts it really. Rural Turkey actually tends to be a bit more tolerant then the cities and some of the most puritanical places in the Middle East (Mainly the Gulf) are the better off parts. Afghanistan is a different case altogether however, but there are alternate explanations for its backwardness.
Sorry if this post came off as a bit too anti-Western, but it must be recognised that a lot of the roots of angry Jihad were actually caused by the west. Both directly and indirectly.