All Islamic societies are — architecturally — anti-technological, and the more fundamentalist they are, the more this becomes literally true. The paradigmatic fundamentalist Muslim society exists only within the matrix of a pre-industrial dark-age technology where education and wealth are starkly rationed to those at the top of the pyramid, and the bulk of society simply does what it's told.

Left to their own devices, all of Islam would revert to this in 20 or 30 years. We should let them.

There are drawbacks to that plan, certainly. The principal drawback is that it promotes slavery, and slavery is both a moral and an economic abomination. It is a moral abomination because it supports and reinforces the idea that one person can own another. It is an economic abomination because it acts as "an anchor to windward"; it makes stagnation more economically attractive and thus impedes progress. This is why whenever in the modern world one finds slavery being practiced, it is a virtual certainty that it is happening in a Muslim nation. The Muslim mind-set does not see this stagnation as a problem to be solved. It is not 'a bug'; it is a feature. The availability of labor at below-market rates artificially alters the cost of capital to make investing in alternatives less profitable and thus less attractive. In such a situation, technological progress happens almost exclusively among those who do not own slaves.

This is precisely what happened in 1861-65: the Confederacy was almost exclusively agricultural because the availability of slave labor substituted for technological progress. The Union, a mix of agricultural and industrial economies, could bring technology to bear and after the Emancipation Proclamation and the resulting influx of Northern abolitionists into the Union Army, the South's effort to secede collapsed.