I don't know how helpful this will be for everyone but I found them worth the read.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0412/p06s01-wome.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/a_widow_into_iran

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is MUFTI?

One definition I have read is "A Muslim scholar who interprets the shari'a."

Another meaning for "mufti" refers to someone who is deliberately not wearing a uniform but instead chooses to disguise his appearance by wearing civillian garb.

In regard to the person under disussion which, if either of these definitions apply?

Funny, but this doesn't read to me as if Ms Hanson has any love of Muslims (although her own ethnic composition is in part Middle Eastern), taken from Gerard McManus, "Once more into the fray", Herald-Sun, 17 March 2007, pp 27-28:

The Herald Sun visited Hanson at her rural retreat near Ipswich to discover why she wants to run for Federal Parliament again as a Senate independent....
But it is Hanson's view on the Muslim question that is certain to unsettle the major parties.
"We have to decide now whether we want to go the way Britain, France and the Netherlands have gone," she says. "England's being lost, it's losing its identity and its way of life.
"Do we want that here?
"Who's saying anything about this in Australia?"
The major parties want to "manage" the Muslim question through a combination of education, tolerance and application of the law to the radical fringe. But Hanson says that this is impossible.
"The fact is they are Muslim first and Australian second," she says.
According to Hanson, Muslims already here will have to assimilate to the Australian way of life.
But the shutters should be put up to stop new Mulsim arrivals, she says.
Hanson says the Muslim way of life is "totally opposite" to the Australian way, citing instances of multiple marriages, forcing women to wear the burqa, closure of swimming pools to males and shopping centre bans on Christmas decorations.
"There was the report about Muslim kids urinating on the Bible, and Muslim police officers who can't shake the hand of their own superintendent," she says.
"Female Mulsim [in original] policewomen can't even arrest a man."

Shakira
the problem you highlight is real, no question about that.

The deeper problem though, and the one which must be addressed is:

"Which type of Muslim is closer to Mohammad, the Quran and Sunnah ?- these supposedly unrepresentative figureheads or the moderates who are in cringe mode because of them"?

If I were to write a thesis on 'GREAT CRIMINALS OF HISTORY' they might include the following:

-Pablo Escobar. Infamous drug trafficker who also did many wonderful altruistic humanistic socially beneficial things, such as build hospitals, churches, soccer pitches for the poor etc. (But of course he tortured, murdered and pillaged those who went against him)

-Pope John XII (955-964)
ascended to the papacy at age 16. This totally depraved individual is said to have slept with his mother. He kept a harem at the Lateran Palace. He enjoyed sexual relations with men, women, and children, and performed "shows" for audiences during which he copulated with horses.

-Adolph Hitler
did many worthy things for the German people. Reduced unemployment, prodided affordable cars for the masses, and many other virtuous acts. He had a major flaw though, he decided to liquidate all Jews and any people or nation which opposed his plans for German Dominance.

-Mohammad of Islam.
Did many worthy things for the Arab people, Reduced oppression of women, united tribes, provided economic advances.
Unfortunately, he had a major flaw, he destroyed Jews. He managed to wipe out one tribe (Banu Qurayza) and exile others, and had no qualms about torturing people, mutilating prisioners and stealing and distributing his victims wealth to his gang.

So, the problem, restated is... how close are these Hilayli's and Ahmadinejad's to the man they seek to represent to the world ?

My opinion is "pretty close...but at this stage probably not as bad"
Though Irans leader is probably closer than Hilayli.

CONCLUSION. Why follow such a man as Mohammad in either moderation or extremity ?

I probably shouldn't dignify Banjo's previous comment. However, there is plenty of evidence of Hanson's detestation of Muslims. For example:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hanson-turns-on-diseased-africans/2006/12/06/1165081010724.html

Suggesting an immigration moratorium on all people from a particular religious grouping is detestation (and bigotry) as far as I'm concerned. No correspondence entered into. Even worse, she puts the boot into African people as well. I'm surprised she hasn't had a go at Jewish people. Maybe they're next.

No doubt Hanson fans will whinge that she was taken out of context. Hilaly supporters say exactly the same thing. Fortunately, both Hanson and Hilaly are fringe-dwellers in Australian political life and we'll be hearing less and less of them.

DavidJS,
Why don't you simply put forward any evidence that 'I know Hanson detests muslims' or simply fade out of the picture. You have been caught out lying and your creibility is shot.

Anyone, including Ms hanson, has a right to advocate that certain people not be allowed to immigrate here, on the grounds of incompatability. This does not mean that person 'detests' those people. Did not Fred Nile make the same call recently. Would you say he 'detests' anyone? By the way the word detest means to dislike intensely, loathe.

Now you introduce a strawman by way of the African refuges.

Now, Ms Hanson was commenting about the inadequacy of or health screening. Read the smh article that you claim is evidence, she makes no critisism of the Africans themselves.

From memory, shortly after the article appeared, a health official or a politician admitted that only a percentage of refuges were actually health screened or a long time elapsed between screening and the refuges coming here.

You continue to confirm your lack of integrity by not being able to put up evidence of your unfounded claim of detestation.