Can government efforts to promote moderate Islam reduce violence, or otherwise serve as an antidote to intolerant interpretations of Islam? Is it possible that if disaffected populations associate moderate Islam with an unpopular government, the idea of moderation will itself be discredited? In the wake of 9/11, the association of “Islam” with “terrorism” in the American imagination led some commentators to the notion of so-called “moderate Islam,” in an effort to distinguish the majority of Muslims from the tiny minority of radical extremists. Yet Middle Eastern regimes soon sought to capitalize on America’s search for “moderate Islam,” and institutions, conferences, and organizations dedicated to promoting so-called moderate Islam now proliferate: but do they have the intended effect of reducing intolerance? The paper examines how populations react to the endorsement of moderate Islam by their authoritarian leaders. Based on interviews with government officials, clerics, teachers, and young people, the paper compares evidence from the Gulf (Oman), the Levant (Jordan), and North Africa (Tunisia). Initial findings reveal that respondents view moderate Islam as overtly politicized and not true to Muslim doctrine, merely the naked expression of regime agendas. However the paper examines other circumstances in which populations have incorporated ideas of toleration into their conception of Islam as well as their national identity. The paper concludes that path dependence, state capacity, and timing have an inordinate effect on the ability of the state to shape the religious beliefs of inhabitants.