Indeed. The problem is to find a balance between the individual and the group which it belongs to. If one becomes too dependent on the collective to survive, his capacities to act will become more and more limited through each generation, like a domesticated animal's compared to one living in the wild. Ultimately, he will no longer even be capable of acting on his own. That is why I do not believe in the "community" approach, over the "individual" approach. It will limit our options, and if the ideal of the community turns out to be false (as it probably would according to the Islamic ideal, atleast), we will all have failed. With each person possessing an individual will, the chance of a collective failure is greatly decreased.
However, it is buffoonery of course, to not expect like-minded individuals to form collectives, in order to reach their common objectives. That is inevitable. However, these objectives must be commonly agreed upon, otherwise the collective will destroy itself from internal conflict.
There is no way to properly introduce a radical Muslim to a liberal society, and have them both achieve their goals. There will eventually be a point when the two can no longer co-exist.
The problem with the secular world, to me, is not so much the fact that we are introduced to all of these possibilities (including, of course, the possibilities for failure), but the fact that we are not, perhaps, quite ready to meet all of its challenges. Perhaps there should have been a smoother transition period from the religious world-view, of maintaining tradition, to whatever the hell is going on today. But we are past the point of return in that regard. There is not going to be no Islamic "Ummah" to escape to, as long as the scientist is allowed his say.
