Ali Sina, an Iranian ex-Muslim writer, poses the confounding question of our day: how can Muslim "reformers" express reverence for Islam's founder and yet do their utmost to try to distance themselves from his more violent and draconian ways and teachings, including his call to wage jihad until such time as the infidel submits (to the lowly status Islam forces on him) and agrees to fork over what, in Mafioso terms, would be called "protection money," but which Islam calls the jizya?
Sina views this sort of compartmentalization as a kind of "trick". A feat of legerdemain and sleight of hand as the problematic is fudged, misrepresented or outright ignored. (Another tactic, one which Daniel Pipes, who should know better, has been known to employ: assert that Islam must not be "essentialized," because that's a disservice to the reform-minded who want to focus only on the fluffy, non-threatening form of jihad that amounts to a personal, internal "struggle" to be a good Muslim.)
Me? I think it's more a matter of silencing any and all cognitive dissonance that may or may not break through the reformers' denial barrier every now and them.