The best way is to stop the flow of asset's into the middle east except for Israel and Jordan. Let the the other countries wither and die. Stop all banks and other countries from financing Islamic theocratic governments of the middle east. Block the the flow of illegal immigrants through out Europe. Islam in itself will collapse. It has been said that any invader who tried to invade India became absorbed and assimilated. Just maybe, polytheism is the key in stopping Islam. Such a country as India religions just over-whelms foreign invaders. India is becoming modernized despite a large population living in poverty.
If the US would recognize the polytheism is a good thing and let it grow. Immigrants coming to this country would be assimilated into a US polytheistic culture a lot faster.
Instead of declaring this nation "under one God" maybe it would be it should be changed "under many Gods". Let the minority religions in this country thrive and offer the populace an alternative ways of worship as they do in India.

+1

"It will take magic to reason with those fanatics."
Yes. I think fanatical and criminal behavior, including mass-murder, will always be with us. We can't make other people reason. We need to have reason, law, and all the prosperity that come with that. People can choose if they want to go that path or be criminals. Some people will be criminals.

Thanks for reminding me about Gulf, MamaEmma. I like Gulf, too, with some reservations. On the plus side, it was written 8 years later and Heinlein was able to use that time to convert the basis from one with fantasy elements to one more science based. I'm sure that required a bit of research, study and imagination. OTOH, in the intervening 8 years between the two stories, the atomic bomb was perfected and used. The effect of that (and the US' resulting position as "world guardian") on Heinlein is clear in the story. Instead of having the belief that all people could achieve advanced thought (as in Lost Legacy) he naively proposes a benevolent dictatorship (as he must have seen the USA at the time.) Heinlein used that theme in an earlier story, too,Solution Unsatisfactory which predicted use of atomic weapons. At the time Gulf was published, Russia had just made their first successful atomic test (Aug '49.) and the danger Heinlein correctly perceived from that event is obvious in Gulf. We have seen in our lifetime, the fallacy of an alleged benevolent "world guardian" being played out and its effect on liberty
Another minor point, the "solution" in Gulf doesn't deal with the likely possibility that someone will re-invent the "Nova" effect either. In Solution Unsatisfactory Heinlein did resolve that issue.

So, while I like Gulf,I don't expect a benevolent dictator to save the day(and to keep saving it forever.) So I prefer the message in Lost Legacy. Teach people to think using reason and educate them. It also has a more rewarding ending for the romantic heroes.
(Unsurprisingly, I preferred Star Wars episode 4 - A New Hope, over episode 5 -Empire Strikes Back, too;^)

We live about 4 hours away. The daughter of one of my best friends lives in your town. I am sure that she will do her work in Florida while she is in school, but after that, who knows?

She has done well in all of her classes except chemistry, despite my and my other daughter's tutoring. Chemistry is the reason that she is going into dental hygiene rather than becoming a dentist like she wanted to do at first. She will eventually become a very good dental hygienist, and she like the Atlas Shrugged movies more every time she watches them.

People who have never been free have to learn to be free. People in the middle east have never been free. They have always been subject to some imam, sultan, emir or whatever the despot-du-jour. Formal education if any is in religion-oriented madrasses or they learn from their equally unenlightened families. So the very concept of freedom is a foreign and therefore suspect. That;s why the "Arab Spring" failed as
they shortly co-allessed behind new leaders for
more of the same. Freedom is outside their
comfort zones.

For such a person to suddenly gain freedom is like
uncapping a bottle of soda water--instant decompression and then what? I remember Robin
Williams as his Mork-from-Ork character tossing an egg into the air with the exhortation, "Be free!"
only to watch it splatter on the table.

To be truly free one has to have learned personal
responsibility. Each individual has to internalize their own code of conduct and to accept the consequences of their actions and not excuse themselves as being subject to the will of another or to group mores. Until that happens nothing will change.

Nothing is forced. All you have is free speech, which doesn't exist under the theocracy. And Muslims leave their religion in droves (see links in the article). On can even have democratic elections when the majority is overtly non-Muslim.

The best part about this article is "muslims are already leaving islam in droves..."
It would be fantastic if the only one left were the radicals. Then we'd know who they were, and they couldn't hide behind the foolishly misled.

Spurred on by you, freedom, I reread Lost Legacy today. Did you like his novella Gulf? I find it to be uplifting as well. Both stories are about good vs. evil, with the good winning in the end.

That was my assumption, that their background would be such that they may understand, but will not adopt reason.

Tell her congrats from me! Many years ago I was the supervising dentist for our local DH program and taught a few classes. It is a rigorous program. I was amazed at the amount of information and clinical skills they pack in to 2 years. She will be working hard.

Jbrenner, I would be honored to help her out in any way I can. I live in South Georgia, probably not very far from you. Unfortunately, the practice of dental hygiene or dentistry is very strictly regulated by state boards. She would be able to come to my office and observe, but the only way a student could legally "apprentice" would be if I am certified as adjunct faculty, and I am not at this time. I would be very happy to help her any way that I can. I assume she will be practicing in Florida?

Mamaemma, my younger daughter is starting school for a dental hygiene AS degree. I would be honored if she could apprentice under you.

An outstanding question, Mamaemma! They understand capitalism fairly well. Atheism is not something they will be willing to embrace. They may understand it, but they will not adopt Objectivism.

For another scholarly review, Read "What Went Wrong" by Bernard Lewis, a well known expert on things Islamic. His conclusion is that they must take the initiative to reform themselves. An excellent read, free of bias.

It is a bit over the top.
Keep in mind it may come down to that should terrorists cause Obama-paid-for-via-Iran mushroom clouds to appear in the USA.
Should we beat them to the punch? Maybe.
No one threw the first nuclear punch during the Cold War because no one on either side was some crazy religious fanatic.
This time around I know that now we are dealing with crazy Islamic fanatics who send out little kids to blow up people.
Me dino is just loathe to nuke little kids no matter who they belong to.
Yes, I know civilians were bombed by all sides especially during World War II.
And I'd do not want radioactive particles to be blown into Israel.
Sometimes mystic me will give a little money to an organization that sends Bibles to Muslims who are don't wannabe Muslim, though some of them may end up on the wrong end of a so-called honor killing.
The moderator? Any made Joe Blow in the Gulch can give a down.vote.
I'll give you an up vote; but if you get popped again, my vote will be expended for already cast.

Jbrenner, what is your judgment of their ability to understand an Objectivist view?

allosaur
obviously my recommendation is not appreciated by the moderator. if the world of non-muslims doesn't act to rid the world of the vermin, missing links they will infest the rest of the world and destroy civilization as we know it!

True progress (dictionary meaning) can never be imposed. It must come from within. Unless it is an outgrowth of the people it wont last. When a population is ready to shake off privation and the stupidity of mysticism or collectivism it will come of itself. It may take hundreds of years, but it will happen, and when it does, if it has any degree of rationality it will prosper. But in all history the cycle never seems to last very long. As the saying goes, humanity can't stand prosperity.. Eventually the moochers take over, civilization crumbles and the climb to the light starts all over.

First off, I will admit that what I'm about to propose is a bit of a modest proposal and will never happen. That being said, just for the sake of discussion, what if we were to erect a virtual wall around the Islamic countries that are leaning more radical. For instance, Saudi Arabia is very hardline Islamic, but we don't hear about it too much because they sell us relatively cheap oil. If all the non-islamic countries were to stop buying their oil, where would the financing for large scale operations come from? If we allowed no transit in or out of those countries it may cut down the number of people who are bent on attacking the west. Granted, there will be home grown terrorists.
So, you would end up with them attacking each other. Eventually, after they reduce their own populations through infighting and social Darwinism we could step in and colonize thereby modernising the middle east. With the current population there, there is no modernization.

It will take magic to reason with those fanatics.

I disagree with the premise of "modernizing the Middle East". When they want to move into the 21st century, they will do so on their own. I am helping some of the potential future leaders prepare for such a modernization in a value-for-value exchange (their tuition for my education of them). They will arrive there in due time.

True. The petro-dollar has been supported by some arab princes, and that support could be withdrawn if a wide economic blockade was applied. Lots of countries have been economically damaged by the petro-dollar, allies as well as enemies. Could be a big problem for the US fedgov and US economy.

the best way to modernize the middle east is to first get rid of the entirety of the muslim population, then who ever wants to go there to live go for it.
of course you know why atomic bombs exist, now is the time to use them.

"One can’t modernize Islam if, as Richardson says, the canon was designed around emulating the founder as the moral ideal."

This to me is the crux of the entire argument. Modernization is a red herring. Fashion has no inherent philosophical value. Moral principles are principles regardless of the age they were practiced in.

All philosophies put forth some kind of ideal which they ascribe as the summum bonum of perfection, or in other words that which man should strive for. Whether the ideal has an embodiment (real or fictional) such as Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, John Galt, etc. is for the benefit of the potential adherent: it is far easier to relate to and adopt a philosophy one can see in action through example than merely the purely hypothetical. It is a fact that all men strive to become something other than what they started out as in this life. The real question of philosophy is what actually is the ideal state of man and in what time frame.

Islam identifies the ideal state of man and time frame in Mohammed. It really is that simple. To the followers of Islam, Mohammed is the culmination of perfection. Why don't his followers "get with the times" as it were? Because in the ascribed perfection that is Mohammed are prohibitions against the very things that this century pushes. It's a philosophical clash of ideals and the assumption that they need to be modernized is in actuality a biased judgement not based on the merits of the individual philosophies at all but merely one stemming from what we - the modern outsider - are familiar and comfortable with. Now please do not misunderstand this to be a defense of Islam. It is merely a debunking of the argument of "modernization" - which really means nothing at all!

Modernity is not a principle, it is a time frame. If we really want to get down to brass tacks, what we have to do is get down to real philosophical value differences such as the equality of men and women, the right to free speech, the right to property, etc. Those are principles. And they are principles which aren't shared by the Islamic philosophy. There is no way to "modernize" Islam - it is an absurd notion because it assumes that two competing ideals can exist within the same philosophy. If we hold to logic, we see that no philosophy can survive an internal incompatibility of such a nature. So what we are really saying is that we want Islam to either become something other than Islam, or we want to see those who profess a belief in Islam to choose to abandon the principles of Islam for something else. In either case, the result is a destruction of Islam. That is what modernization really means.

I am all for the destruction of Islam. I want nothing more than for its followers to abandon that religion en masse. Its values are devoid of merit and at its heart it rejects the freedom of the mind and will and punishes dissention with death. To me, there is little more reprehensible than that - except maybe the practice of stoning rape victims.