Please visit the wikiIslam site which purports to have videos on Islam in a number of areas. I glanced through the videos listed in the categories on the right side. Those who are in the videos include notorious Islamophobes like Robert Spencer or apostates like Walid Shoebat.
Wikipedia is supposed to allow to anyone to edit information on any site, but I have not had time to figure out how to. It also seems that whatever one edits can be undone by the sysop. Here is a video clip about what WikiIslam aims to do:
The site reveals its Islamophobic nature by including a drawing of Muhammad (s) and Aisha (r) on its mainpage. In its policies and guidelines section, It also has the following statement about the kind of research that is supposed to back up anything uploaded to the site: “Original research has a slightly different meaning on this website: whatever information you enter on this website, should be generally agreed upon by non-Muslims.” Suddenly, non-Muslims have now become the experts on Islam!!!
Astaghfirullah, on the wikiIslam website, Muhammad (s) is called a Briber • Child Abuser • Delusional • Deceiver • Dispraised • Liar • Mass Murderer • Megalomaniac • Pedophile • Obese • Plunderer • Polygamist • Privileged • Racist • Rapist • Slaver • Spouse Abuser • Terrorist • Torturer • Unclean • Warmonger
The Islamic Workplace 
Jaime
January 14, 2008
That site is terrible and I could spend days correcting it, but even as a non-apologist student of Islamic thought, I am sure my historical and theological alterations would be struck down swiftly. They don’t want academic rigor. There is obviously an ax to grind and it’s sure sad. With headlines/links like “Top Ten Versus Muslims Wish Were Never Revealed” and “List of worship places converted or destroyed by Muslims” this site clearly has an agenda. This is too bad. Free speech is important, but when it disguises itself as ‘education’ it can be very dangerous.
Fortunately for Muslims these “whistle blower” ideologies are failures. They only really hark to the beginning days in Arabia, the medevil period tafsir, and the violent jihadiyya of today, picking and choosing what to include as ‘real’ history. These are all very violent times when Islamdom fought for its survival, empire expansion, and against colonial and post-colonial enterprises. Of course there is no excuse argued here, but its all contextual. There is, of course, no mention of the majority of Muslim society of today because the only Muslims they know are the one’s who make headlines.
I am seeing this phenomenon more and more these days, especially in the blogosphere, and it worries me even as a non-Muslim. It worries me that ignorance is fueling hatred. Clearly for one to have better interaction and understanding of their Muslim neighbors, central concepts like jihad, jizya, etc., should be addressed, but in a historically accurate and sound method. But when this understanding is sought-out through these “whistle blowers”, the path they lead is only to fear and misunderstanding. Fear and misunderstanding are only a few steps away from refusal of difference within our society and the stereotyping of the vast majority of peaceful Muslims as closet jihadi terrorists.
Jaime
speculative.wordpress.com
islamthought
January 2, 2009
Asalamu alaikum and peace to all
I have initiated a type of “think tank” organization so to speak with the intention to addressing the entire islamaphobic sphere and all polemics, including heresiographical groups within Islam, however, I came across this site and wanted ot pose a proposition.
I have started this page on my blog http://islamthought.wordpress.com/wikiislam/
I am currently recruiting people who can merely contribute to this project alone (not the entirety of the site) as this project of “wikiIslam” is grand in its task. Our intention is to address every single iota of a letter that they posted regarding Islam and to act as its counter offensive to their absurdities.
Do not expect them to be balanced and do not expect to have balanced moderation on that site for they will revert it back to their ideas to the exclusion of factual history and academics. I have dealt iwth them before.
In the event one wishes to go foward with this offer of mine, then please post your contact information on the comments page of our site or use our email which is posted on the same page.
This islamaphobic sight is based on Ali Sina’a methodology, and to him arguments cannot be in the following two forms
a- Denial of the authenticity of Islamic sources that report the stories of crimes of Muhammad (example: debate with Edip Yukssel, a leader of the Submitters)
b- Moral relativism and situational ethics, e.g., “In those days, pedophilia, assassination, rape, raid, pillage, massacre and lying, were common practices, so Muhammad is innocent because he did what everyone else was doing.” Muslims even go as far as to question the legitimacy of the Golden Rule to claim I do not have any basis to condemn Muhammad. In other words, who can say what is good and what is evil? That is up to the messenger of God to decide. (Example: debate with Yamin Zakaria)
So, what I will do is to counter everything outside of these two patterns that does not hold any relevance to the eyes of the antagonists of Islam. However, I will also clarify the logical fallacy contained in the above two conditions that Ali Sina stipulated as being apologeticism and clarify the actuality of apologeticism God Willing.
asalamu alaikum
Akahoshi11
December 1, 2012
All thanks to God , and peace and blessing upon the noblest of messengers , the seal of prophets , and God’s mercy to mankind , our teacher Muhammad . And upon his people and friends .
I saw one page of that site and I understood right away what kind of sick site it is . I mean , seriously , do they think anybody would believe this site is for education ? ALL its articles are hating disrespectful , bawdy , empty claims . Any fair sane person would understand it right away .