Er let me see:
Prose vs lists: Perhaps Prose is better than just plain lists (although some people seem to like and want lists, there are loads of "list of...." articles, which show the demand for it).  The nature of this particular article does tend towards bullet points: people usually want to make several points about the same subject, list several authors etc, and this is difficult to do coherently using prose.  The idea of bullet points was invented to overcome this very problem, and is becoming more common in modern prose.  (the only disadvantage is that it is worse if you read it aloud).  I have tried to plain lists, so for example I added a couple of lines (usually taken from their own Wikipedia pages) for some of the critics or responders whose only appeared as names.

The problem with reliable sources. I am only copying in the pre-existing references.  But the real problem is that there is no definition of reliable, and being reliable is not quite the same as important.  If Gerry Falwell or Osama Bin Laden make a statement about Islam those statements becomes important because of wha made it, not necessarily because it has any acedemic validity.

Balance of critiques and responses. Again I have only restructured what was there. The restructuring may make any lack of balance more obvious, and show where further work needs to be done.

Section on Islam and War. Sperry's section on Islam and War was in before the restructure, I didn't notice the fight about it. I'm going to stand back from this one. If anyone else wants to restart this debate, please do so.