whats the best way to learn the sicilian as a 1100-1200 player?

After 1 e4 the move ... c5 occurs in the French, Ruy Lopez, Pirc, and Sicilian--it's the timing and where white places his pieces that can cause black to transpose.  For example, Kasparov used to defend the Sicilian Alapin with a French like pawn structure:

So, eventually a good Sicilian player will need to understand all these openings' basic strategies.  Practice them all.  But, of course, to play Sicilian in tournament, you'll have to know more book on the line you choose (like, say, the Najdorf).

See the engine and the explorer

ah I understand now, thanks for that!

Here is a Sicilian repertoire that I think is simple and effective enough to be played at a U1200 level:

Sicilian Defense: O'Kelly, Normal System 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4/Qxd4

Sicilian Defense: O'Kelly, Venice System 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 3. c3:

...Gambit Line 3... d5 4. exd5 Nf6

...Barcza Line 3... Nf6 4. e5 Nd5;

...'French Line' 3... e6 4. d4 d5 5. e5;

French Defense: Advance, Paulsen Attack 1. e4 c5 2. c3 e6 3. d4 d5 4. e5 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6

Sicilian Defense: Kan Variation 1. e4 c5 2. d4 e6 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6

Sicilian Defense: Closed, Traditional Line, 3. Nf3 e5 4. Bc4 d6 5. d3 Be7

Sicilian Defense: Grand Prix Attack, 3...g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 

Sicilian Defense: Closed, Fianchetto Variation, 3...g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Nge2 Nf6 7. 0-0 0-0 8. f4

The O'Kelly does incredibly well against 3. d4. If you find you don't like mainline O'Kelly, 4... e6 transposes to the Kan.
If they know what they're doing or main Delayed Alapin, the Venice System still works rather well.
If they play one of the Grand Prix setups, the Dragon bishop will become incredibly useful.
If they play the Alapin, you can play 2... e6 to try to transpose to an Advance French.
(If 4. exd5, theory follows 4... exd5 5. Nf3 Nc6)
If they play the Smith-Morra Gambit, 2... e6 to transpose to the Kan variation.
(If 2... d5, White has the option to transpose to Old Benoni or Benoni/Benko, which means that at higher ELO values, learning to properly accept the Smith-Morra is probably better)
If they play the Closed Sicilian without the Grand Prix, the Botvinnik Center will make it hard for White to retain anything more than equality.

The O'Kelly is popular.  You have to be comfortable against the Maroczy Bind

I hadn't taken this move into consideration, so thank you for bringing it to light. The Geller Line seems quite reasonable for Black here, however. 

Reasonable or not, it is stupid to suggest for beginners to play like that (temporarily pawn down, and a bishop pair to the opponent). Nine and a half times out of then they will commit Hara-Kiri from this position.

I like to play d6 + a6, and then wing it from there. No extensive theory memorization needed.

(This, though, does mean that I sometimes get punished for not knowing proper theory. But the ease of not having to remember theory is a bonus to counterweigh the risk.)

With the Sicilian, I find it easier to worry more about key squares, development schemes, and common pawn structures, rather than worrying about specific lines and variations (which can be far too much for most of us mortals to keep in our heads).

For example, I often like to aim for this kind of structure (a Scheveningen structure, with a pawn on a6), as black:

I don't always acheive this, but it gives me an idea to aim for - one that I can adjust and change, depending on what my opponent does.

One practical approach is to look through a database, and choose master-level games with the specific kind of pawn structure that you want to play. If you like the d6+e5 structure, for example, then look for those kinds of games. Browse through a lot of them. You'll start to see common moves and ideas, the more games you look through ... things that you can start to look for (or practice) in your own games.

True, the Najdorf does not require extensive memorization. Just 474 lines, at most.

 IM pfren, lol !  With diagrams too?

It's a theoretical tome, for sure.

But I like to dodge much of the theory by playing 6... e6 against nearly everything - a tip I learned from John Emms' Play the Najdorf: Scheveningen Style.

When Emms wrote the book, the Keres Attack was supposed to be a problem. Today we know that it is not a big deal, so using your move order you just play the Sheveningen with the need to learn MORE lines than following the normal Sheveningen move order.

So, you don't "dodge much of the theory", actually the opposite could be claimed.

Hmm... did not know that. I appreciate the heads up.

I'm realizing that I chose a different line than my original choice for U1200. The one I recommended would be for my level of play, ~1600-1700 play. My recommendation for U1200 would be this line.

I don't know why you recommend this stuff. There is no point messing around with move orders to enter the Accelerated Dragon. It's not that big of a deal to learn the Rossolimo compared to any of the lines in the other move orders.

You recommend all these weird, offbeat lines all for the sake of "avoiding theory". As if it's so important to "avoid theory" compared to actually learning something and playing a good opening. It happens a lot that lower level players try to play some offbeat line against a higher level player to try to "avoid theory" and then just end up with a terrible position. Also because if you are constantly avoiding learning anything then you are not even going to understand the offbeat line that you play. It's not that worth it to avoid main lines in order to just play a bad position where you get yourself into a mess. Sooner or later players will start punishing you for it.

They said they already thought about whether they should play the sicilian before making the post and already decided to do so. The original post was not asking anyone to tell them which opening to play.

You may as well play this if you want to avoid theory so badly:

Wow, so offbeat. Opponent will not be prepared! This is my new gambit. It's where you gambit your king to avoid theory.

Back when I played the alekhines defense, I had to learn a lot of theory to play without theory. A very strange contradiction. Nowadays I play both the Sicilian and Kings Indian, and strangely enough I have been getting good positions out of the opening despite learning less theory.

I’ll probably need to book up on the rossolimo though, because my last four Sicilian otb games were all rossolimos and I lost all of them…

Avoiding mainline theory got me from 1000 to 1500, stopped working, so I learned theory over the course of a few months, started playing longform theory and went from 1500 to ~1730 peak in literally two days. Meanwhile, an OTB friend of mine (+= OTB rapid and blitz record against me, similar time playing chess overall) only plays mainline theory and is hardstuck around 1100. I fully expect them to catch up to very quickly if they ever make it past 1400. I never recommend "avoiding theory" in the way that your post below does, as that is INCREDIBLY stupid. I recommend "avoiding theory" by not playing mainlines. For example, between like 900-1300, I would never recommend playing the Italian as White or 1... e5 non-Petrov's openings as Black because everybody plays the Fried Liver, and so a lot of players in that range know Knight Attack counterplay like Polerio, Traxler, or Ulvestaad. I played a match at 1100 blitz where we went 8 moves deep into Polerio Bishop Check Line Bogojubilov theory, but I didn't understand anything about the resulting position and lost in 15 moves. Meanwhile, once I realized everybody did the exact same thing, I started playing simple Petrov's, Alekhine's or Modern theory against 1. e4 (all of which I understood) and my ELO skyrocketed. Then, I switched back to playing mainline Italian, Scotch, and Spanish theory once I hit a plateau around 1500 and again, instant results. Mainline theory has its place, and that place is for players 1500 and higher, where half a point of material genuinely means something half the time and endgame conversions are inevitable.