Jihadwatch has a good article referencing the Rand Corporation and their definition of a moderate Muslim.

• Does the group (or individual) support or condone violence? If it does not support or condone violence now, has it supported or condoned it in the past?
• Does it support democracy? And if so, does it define democracy broadly in terms of individual rights?
• Does it support internationally recognized human rights?
• Does it make any exceptions (e.g., regarding freedom of religion)?
• Does it believe that changing religions is an individual right?
• Does it believe the state should enforce the criminal-law component of shari’a?
• Does it believe the state should enforce the civil-law component of shari’a? Or does it believe there should be non-shari’a options for those who prefer civil-law matters to be adjudicated under a secular legal system?
• Does it believe that members of religious minorities should be entitled to the same rights as Muslims?
• Does it believe that a member of a religious minority could hold high political office in a Muslim majority country?
• Does it believe that members of religious minorities are entitled to build and run institutions of their faith (churches and synagogues) in Muslim majority countries?
• Does it accept a legal system based on nonsectarian legal principles?

Great, now will the real moderate Muslims speak up and affirm this?  The problem is many of these questions completely contrast the belief of many so-called moderate Muslims not to mention the Koran, Surra and Hadith. I think it’s safe to say that Islam has no place in a democratic society and “moderate Muslims” should stop pretending they are pro democracy, pro-free speech and pro-freedom of religion.