Typically the discussion carries on for some as though the 12+ pages before don't exist. That suits their convenience and spin.

To recapitulate and easily done by linking to an article that most would regard as evenly balanced and fair,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4260898/Muslim-Tanveer-Ahmed-hits-Yassmin-Abdel-Magied.html

"'It is embarrassing': Muslim psychiatrist slams Q&A star Yassmin Abdel-Magied for 'brushing off' Islam's abuse of women while she enjoys the 'freedoms and privileges' of the West

Former multicultural adviser Tanveer Ahmed slammed Yassmin Abdel-Magied

Dr Ahmed, a psychiatrist, said she had denied Islamic abuses of women and girls
Said Abdel-Magied had confused freedoms and privileges of the West for Islam

Argued engaging Muslims by their religion increased danger of Islamic laws

A Bangladeshi-born Muslim community leader has accused Islamic youth activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied of being in denial about how Islam is linked to the abuse of women.

Tanveer Ahmed - a psychiatrist, Sydney councillor and former multicultural adviser - criticised the founder of Youth Without Borders for telling the ABC's Q&A program Islam was 'the most feminist religion'."

- Those are only introductory dot points for a detailed article. There are other relevant details included such as this,

"Three days after that fiery exchange (on Q&A), she (Yassmin) sought advice on Facebook from Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Wassim Doureihi, a frontman for the Islamist political group which is campaigning for a pan-Islamic state based on sharia law."

It is preposterous to present Yassmin as some young woman who is an innocent abroad, who does not realise what she is saying. Quite apart from the ridiculous stereotyping of naive, defenceless, incompetent women, especially of tertiary educated, that image conjures up.

Dear Shadow Minister,

No. That is not what I am arguing at all.
What you are stating about Yasmin is your
argument, not mine.

What I am arguing I've stated quite clearly.
You may think my theories lack
plausability. I may think yours do.

We can argue all we like but neither of us really know
what Yassmin's genuine beliefs or motives are. We can
critique her interpretation of Islam, however we should
not try to prevent her from having that interpretation.

Unless we can create a fair-minded environment for
debate we prevent people like Yassmin Abdel Magied,
and those who critique her interpretation of Islam, from
holding the discussions our democracy needs.

AJP: To be a moderate Moslem without the quote marks one would have to have accepted that the Koran is evil hate speech instructing ts followers to kill and subjugate nonbelievers, and therefore one would have to have repudiated it along with the desert bandit that butchered non believers at the beginning. But such a moderate Moslem would not be a Moslem at all. Just as a moderate Christian would have to repudiate Jesus but remain a Christian. No such beastie.

Here, in its own words, is what the Koran says about non-believers:

http://freethoughtnation.com/what-does-th-koran-say-about-nonbelievers/

Either that Moslem woman had never read the Koran or she had and she was lying to a non-Moslem audience about it.

You can't talk about a single Muslim identity.
Islam embraces a huge range of nationalities,
cultures, and languages. The Muslim communities
are made up of people from all over the globe.
Each culture or nationality has a different
interpretation of Islam. And, the Quran is
subject to a vast plurality of interpretations.

Muslim scholars stress the fact that the texts
have historical context and must be understood in
accordance with them. They also stress that
Quranic interpretation is of fundamental importance.
It is the key to distinguishing Islam as practised
by the majority of its adherents and the extreme
strident strands of Islam as practised by such as
ISIS who rely on truncated interpretations of the
Quranic text. In contrast Sunnis, Shiites and
Muslims of all strips have historically appreciated
the diversity of interpretations among scholars.

The following link explains:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kabir-helminski/does-the-koran-really-adv_b_722114.html

EmperorJulian,

I'm aware of the reasoning behind putting quotation marks around the ‘moderate’ in “moderate Muslim”.

<<But such a moderate Moslem would not be a Moslem at all.>>

This is precisely what I was talking about. Denying that moderates are deserving of the label at all enables one to claim that all Muslims think the same way. Which is precisely what Joe was trying to deny anyone does, in order to conjure a straw man that wasn't there.

You've only strengthened my claim.

I'm well aware of what the Qur’an says about non-believers, too. Moderates have ways of getting around that. For example, the precise meaning of ‘infidel’ is debated in among Islamic scholars. Many argue that ‘infidel’ refers to a person who knows that Islam is the one true religion, but rejects it anyway; which would mean that none of us here are infidels.

SM,
I too read that article and it was not very well written and hard to follow. What I got from it is that there is a reformist group of muslim women in the US and another traditional group of women, that are called the 'hijabi honour brigade'.

It seems the later group has referred to the girls attending the Manchester concert as 'whores'. Even suggesting that the young girls were 'asking for it'--as were their parents who had no business letting them stay out late.

Or as one veil-wearing French woman declared on Twitter, girls as young as eight were targeted because they had been encouraged by Grande to dress "like whores" and dared to go out after dark in a sign of "decadence and deviance

Later in the article this group said that because the young girls attended a concert and were entertained by a singer in a seductive outfit, they were 'prostitutes and deserved to die'

These are Islamic women making these statements. No wonder most westerners believe they are incompatible in our society.