Before you go feeling all smug about your four little examples of so-called moderates, allow me to take them apart and point out the truth.  You seem to be having trouble with that. 

How the Quran Looks at War
A brief read shows this to be a single American Muslim offering his interpretation of several passages, interpretations that sometimes seem misleading. "Second, after praising Abel for not fighting back when Cain murdered him, and decreeing that killing one soul is like killing all humanity, God condemns mass murder by gangs, calling it a war against law and order. The only exceptions are killing in self defense and court ordered execution of a murderer when the victim's family does not forgive. 5:27" Examining a translation of the section in question suggests that Tamman Adi is doing a fair bit of expansion on the actual text. There is no mention of gangs or court orders that I can see. It's also interesting to note that the Koran has Abel hoping for Cain to burn in hell for murder. Right forgiving, that. "Third, we learn that people in certain groups will keep trying to kindle a fire of war, and God promises to put it out. 5:64" This one is very interesting to me, mostly because of what it carefully avoids. The verse does not describe "certain groups" starting wars. It explicitly states that to be the work of the Jews, and even says, "and (as for) most of them, evil is that which they do". Reading the next seven verses makes me wonder how anyone can claim the Koran protects Jews and Christians: Starting from the "Jews are warmongers and do evil" bit, it goes on to say that they "follow no good till [they] keep up the Taurat and the Injeel" (those being Islamic ordinances, I would guess), the Jews kill Muslim apostles, and the Christians who believe in the Trinity are unbelievers and hell-bound. Another note of interest, since Christians and Jews who refuse to convert are defined as unbelievers here, an earlier verse instructs, "grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people". At times, it seems almost schizophrenic how the Koran bounces back and forth between "we should protect the People of the Book" and "they're evil, murderous warmongers, and hell-bound, and we shouldn't worry about them". Here's the kicker: He's a liar. A quick search of an online version of the Koran reveals the concept of war invoked no less than 18 times. Oops. Either he's ignorant of his own religion or trying to hide something. Take your pick. Based on the carefully omitted bits, I know which one I'd pick.

Al-Azhar condemns suicide attacks
Ah, nice try, but that was a temporary position that has been refuted by him more than once. As detailed here, he has wholeheartedly endorsed suicide bombings against the US and in any other situation where jihad has been declared. Oh, and yes, he has endorsed and even declared jihad against the US in Iraq. I wonder if his change in stance was due to internal pressure... I suspect it was, and that would indicate an overall support for such actions within the Sunni organization, at least. So, those who try to be moderates, even from positions of considerable power (or is being the supreme Sunni authority not powerful?) get shouted down by the masses, it would seem.

Memo to Osama bin Laden:
Again, at a glance, this would seem to be a rare moderate. Unfortunately, closer examination suggests that Khan's just playing both sides. I'd take a guess that he is more interested in prestige and power than anything else. Oh, you wanted proof of my charge of falseness? Sure thing. Among other tidbits, he had "Bush's Hall of Shame" on his blog, featuring "The Bigot: Gen. William Boykin", "The Taliban: Attorney General Ashcroft", and "The Tyrant: Donald Rumsfeld". A quick look at his blog also reveals that he spends a considerable amount of time lambasting the US's actions, but next to none on our enemies. As ABC even recorded, he seeks to equivocate terrorists, not condemn them: "The deaths of their own families, the destruction of their homes -- all these are leading to frustration and anger and hopelessness, and they want the enemy to feel the same frustration and hopelessness, so they are resorting to this violence." In another example of the same, he was brought in to speak at a Wahabist conference in Saudi Arabia, the purpose of which included "... conveying to the entire world the true vision about Islam and to show to them that the real terrorism is that committed by the enemies of Islam. In fact the enemies of Islam are committing mass killings against Muslims." Just another apologist without the guts to condemn the atrocities themselves. Regarding the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, Khan still would not condemn suicide attacks or even any attacks on Israelis at all. Instead, he expounded on how attacking civilians did little to benefit the Palestinians: "Notice Israeli response to the killing of a dozen soldiers is more brutal and more comprehensive than any of its responses to suicide attacks on civilians. Suicide attacks on civilians help Israel. Attacks on soldiers hurt Israel. Hence the all out assault." Why, that almost sounds like he's giving advice on how to make terrorist attacks more effective, doesn't it? Oh, and don't forget his blog article "Hamas Victory: Positive for All". "What can be a more spectacular advertisement for the idea that democracy makes politicians out of terrorists than the electoral victory of Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections?" How about the majority condemning the terrorists instead of electing them? That sounds better to me. Apparently Mr. Khan begs to differ. Oh, wait, that would imply both his and the majority of Palestinians' support for Hamas's tactics, huh? Neato.

Last, but not least, Mr.
Don't-Kill-Innocents-(but-there's-no-such-thing-as-innocent-Jews-or-US-soldiers). I'm
just going to let wikipedia shoot him down (quotes sourced here):
"Defending terrorist bombing against off duty soldiers Qaradawi told BBC Newsnight that:
* "An Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier."
* "I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God's justice."
* "Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do"."
'Nuf said on him.

Unlike your presumptuous declaration of winning the game with unsounded examples, I'll give you the benefit of overtime. I will lay claim to the lead, though. Next time you try to refute my point, research your examples a bit. These guys were all on my side of the argument. They may pose as moderates at times, but they really aren't. Much as I'd love to see myself disproven, I won't be. I'm sure you can find a few good examples somewhere, maybe even a few hundred, but you won't find enough to even remotely suggest that the majority of the world's Muslim population (1.5+ billion, isn't it?) condemn terrorism. Hm, I guess I am claiming to be taking the game, huh... Oops. Well, I don't mind extending the overtime for you to try again, so go ahead.

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

The problem was that they were both....homosexuals with a penchant for young boys. The numbers indicate that far more of the molestations were homosexual in nature. Which indicates that homosexuality was a significant factor, more than simply pedophilia. And it wasn't even pedophilia, technically, since most were post-pubescent. However, I would definitely call it sexual abuse of a minor.