One issue of debate between progressives and fundamentalists in many religions is the issue of modernity and how it relates to ancient religious texts. Are the texts meant to develop an underlying moral framework that is understood through reflection on the intent of the scripture making it timeless and applicable to all cultures? Or are the texts a more literal blueprint for society and behavior that implies an already perfect structure?

1.) Does one see the Quranic ayas as a compass pointing in a direction with the expectation of a continuing journey of increasingly applying knowledge to new discoveries and situations-evolving society purposely through Quranic values and reflection?

Collective guilt is one of those pernicious concepts, a tool to spur the individual to action by implicating him/her in crimes committed by others with whom they share certain characteristics. For example, some Americans ascribe collective guilt to Muslims for terrorism, some on the radical Left ascribe collective guilt to whites for systematic decimation of Native Americans. In an insightful comment, Sitaram mentioned how a society shares collective responsibility for atrocities committed by it. When one sees a society as a seperate entity aside from the sum of its individuals, perhaps it makes some sense. Although I would like to believe in the agency of the individual to affect the collective, the fact of the matter is that any single individual only has agency to act, but there is no guarantee of results. Thus, one fact that ancestors of a society committed atrocities should not stain the current society, even if it benefited from said atrocities. If one segment of a society committs an atrocity, can we really hold thier country-mates responsible for it?