Who sees more clearly,
The person who is in a cult who thinks their cult leader is wonderful, or
The person who is outside the cult who carefully examines the cult leaders behaviour and teachings?
Like it or not, sometimes you can see more clearly when your on the outside looking in, than when you're on the inside looking out.
Members of a cult do not define right and wrong as ordinary people do. They redefine right and wrong to mean whatever their founder did is right, and whatever he (or she) forbade is wrong. So when they say their founder was good, that's what they mean. They do not mean he or she was good according to your standard of right and wrong, but theirs. The questionable behavior of their leader is always justified, no matter how immoral it may seem to you or I. Imagine what system of ethics you would come up with if you said whatever Hitler did was right and whatever he forbade is wrong.1
So whenever the members of a religion tell you that their founder was good, and point to the good things their founder said or did, be careful to also look at the questionable things their founder said and did or you might be conned. If someone who claimed to be a prophet really was good, you will be able to look at the most questionable things they said and did and come to the conclusion that they really were a good person. No matter who a person claimed to be, we must use the same standard when comparing them to others. If someone is really good, they do not need to be judged by a different standard. (If anything, anyone claiming to be a prophet, should be judged by a higher standard, not a lower.)
Today many people are saying that a major religion has been hijacked, but many are saying it has not. So how can we know whether it has or not? The only way we could possibly know is if we looked at the best things the founder of the religion did and said, and also looked at the worst things he said and did, and see if his example and teaching is actually being followed.
We must do this because we have a problem. We are at war. We are at war with people who claim that they are following their prophet's example, and the example of the Salaf. They say they are modelling their lives on how their founder lived his life when he was in Medina. They say they are trying to bring the whole world under Islamic law. They also say they are fighting this war according to how the Sharia says war should be fought. Whether or not they are following Muhammad's example when he was in Medina, whether or not the law they are trying to implement is that which Muhammad and his closest followers implemented, or whether or not they are fighting how Muhammad said war should be fought, is all very important to know because it will influence how they fight; so it should influence how we respond. With these things in mind, please consider the following: Understanding the War on Terror through Islamic Law.
1. We must not dehumanise the founder of a cult or the members of a cult, but neither should we publicly humanise them. Imagine that prior to and during WWII movies of Hitler and the Nazis were regularly played in western cinemas. Now imagine they showed Hitler playing with his dog, laughing with his girlfriend, eating his favourite food etc, while ignoring the awful things he wrote and said (and showing the Nazis enjoying life while ignoring the awful things they did). How might that affect people's view of Hitler and the Nazis? (And as uncomfortable as it is to think about, there were Nazis who were decent people. They simply were not aware of what the SS was doing.)
By publicly humanising the founder of a cult—and the cult members—we help the cult to spread.
“Many academics choose to focus on what we believe in common. They believe that if we simply ignore our differences the world will be a better place. It’s good to be gracious and show good will towards others, but when we are talking about beliefs, is it always a good idea to focus on commonalities? Some—in the name of peace—might say we should when talking to them, but what about when we are talking to each other about what they believe? If we are unable to look at and talk about differences in beliefs, we may come to the conclusion that an evil ideology or belief is not evil, but is in fact good, because we’ve completely ignored the questionable behaviour and words of the founder of that ideology or religion, and in the process helped spread the myth that they were a decent person (which makes their religion appear to be far better than it is). We must not enable evil beliefs to spread by dressing up those beliefs and overlooking important differences. We must look closely at and talk about the differences between different religions and beliefs. Yes, we must judge fairly and be charitable. And we must be careful not to call something which is good evil. But we must also be careful not to call something which is evil good. In our attempts to be kind, we must not be apologists for the wicked.” ~ Betrayed
Cults—by their nature—are deceptive. Many decent people are in cults (which makes the cult appear to be better than it is). Some are born into the cult; others become members of the cult because doctrines which would cast a shadow on the cult are kept from them (and are often kept from most of the members of the cult). Because of the top-down nature of Islam most Imam’s choose to keep many things about Muhammad and the Salaf hidden. See Understanding the Religion of Peace.
Question: When a cult becomes large enough, does it cease to be a cult?