Over the years I have seen it happen more than once: a plausible "moderate Muslim" appears on the scene and becomes the darling of hopeful non-Muslims who believe that he epitomizes the peaceful, reasonable face of Islam upon which they have placed so much hope (and based so much policy). His non-Muslim patrons loudly sing his praises and denounce anyone who is rude or "Islamophobic" enough to examine his statements closely and find that they don't actually amount to what those patrons think they do or wish they did: a genuinely peaceful and pluralistic version of Islam that is strong enough on Islamic grounds to convince Muslims that they should abandon jihad against Infidels in all its manifestations.
Not infrequently I have been the first to burst the bubbles of these "moderates," thereby arousing the ire of the willfully ignorant and self-deceived, who found my unwillingness to be satisfied with these moderates' blandly incomplete or deceptive versions of Islam to be evidence of my "Islamophobia" or bigotry or what have you. In reality, it was nothing of the kind. It was just an unwillingness to be fooled.
There was Khaleel Mohammed, who won many bemused non-Muslim hearts (and opened many non-Muslim wallets) by appearing in Obsession, but who later denounced the film as "Satanic."
There was Ed Husain, who continues to bamboozle many in Britain, but not the redoubtable and clear-sighted Melanie Phillips, who saw through him when he began inciting young Muslims to hate Israel over earlier false charges of atrocities against Gazans.
There was Hamid Mir, who wowed audiences in the U.S. with his tales of interviewing Osama bin Laden and avowals of a peaceful, tolerant Islam, who was recently discovered to be aiding the Pakistani Taliban.