"Now You Have Seen the Truth== 
 With respect, I will not join SIIEG, because, and please do not take this the wrong way, you are obviously a bunch of loons. 

 Your problem is that having found out that one ""Truth"" was not a truth at all, you continue to search for ""Truth"".  However, there is no ""Truth"".  (That is not a ""Truth"", btw.)   

 Certainly it is not the function of an encyclopaedia to present the ""Truth"".  You and your Muslim opponents are equally under the misapprehension that that is in fact its function, and so you confuse ""facts"" and ""NPOV"".  You think, incorrectly, that facts ARE NPOV.  That is not true. 

 Facts are, as a matter of fact, very tricky.  Is it a ""fact"" that the ""sharia"" prescribes 100 lashes for ""fornication""?  Well, there is no book called ""The Sharia"", for one.  A statement that something is ""according to the Sharia"", if unqualified, is meaningless.   

 Do Muslims support suicide bombings?  Clearly some do.  If you want to be really NPOV, you can say that they ""describe themselves as Muslims"", which reduces scope for dispute.   Others do not.  Unless you have access to reliable, reputable polls dealing with the subject, no NPOV generalization is possible.   

 Some people who describe themselves as Muslims will use weaselly language when explaining their views on suicide bombings.  The previous statement is clearly not NPOV.  But it is NPOV to quote them, and quote a public figure expressing the view that the statement is weaselly.  Done right, neither you, nor the deranged loons running islam-qa.com will disagree with an NPOV statement - that should be your idea.  Not ""Truth"". 

 By the way, look up E-Prime.  You may find it useful - I would not advocate switching entirely to E-Prime, but you may want to put some thought into full implications of the casual use of the verb ""to be"" and its equivalents.  Sometimes, phenomenological descriptions of events are much better for neutrality.  For example, try to rephrase the statement ""President of Iran is a lunatic"" without using the verb to be. 
 

 =="