Party A believes in, and lives by, all the principles of [X].Questions:
Party B believes in some of, but not all, the principles of [X], and claims that major portions of [X] must evolve due to the cultural advancement of humans.
Which party deserves the title "Xist", who believes in "Xism"?Now refer to the prior article, just below. Then return for the rest here (or just read on, as you choose).
Which party deserves the title, "radical"? Or "apostate"? Or "heretic"?
If "peaceful Muslims" dishonor Islam, then why are they NOT the radicals, rather than the 100% faithful Islamists? Of course, they are, but in the parlance of the Leftist accommodationists, inversion of terminology is frequently necessary in order to further the cause, the Leftist Narrative.
A prime example of that is the new use of the term, "anti-Islamic", for actions of the actual adherents of the grounded rules of Islam. Only the passionate adherents of a Narrative, taken over truth and common sense, would do such a thing.
Plus, it is the Party B, above, which more closely matches the approach of the Left, in the practice of modifying rules and morals to match whichever way the culture goes. Or more specifically, how any person chooses to "reinterpret" or even reject rules at any given moment. In other words it is intellectual and moral anarchy.
Given the obvious worldview anarchy of those in Party B as well as the Left, they all should be called Atheist. They reject any grounded "revealed" and absolute values which they don't like at a particular moment. They place themselves and their own desires and authority higher than anyone else.
They are the Radicals.