"are not considered to be reliable sources" —fully agreed! But no one (not me at least) is talking about using wikiislam as a reliable source per se. The subject was criticism of Islam and I was redirecting readers where they might get more knowledge about the subject. I am rather interested in the credibility of the protocol of the website. Wikiislam was referred to as a "reliable website" and not intrinsically as a SOURCE. It has very reliable sources just as you mentioned  books(mostly QURANIC VERSES, HADITHS, tafsirs), and very nominal amount of personal opinion (less than what some of the articles of wikipedia have).
I am more than happy to argue with you regarding wikiislam's credibility. BUT PLEASE DON'T FEED ME THIS NONSENSE THAT WIKIISLAM IS NOT RELIABLE OR NOTABLE simply because it says something that's considered to be politically incorrect. Learn a little something here. WIKIISLAM, LIKE WIKIPEDIA, is just a conveyor of information through reputed sources. Try to comprehend my point. I'm not so eloquent a person!Barry