This statement indicates the complete misunderstanding of the forces of change that are underway. That is, a misunderstanding of the conflict and of the parties involved. The statement is an oxymoron.
Industrialization is already well underway and has been for let's say 30 years. Those who favor jihad oppose any change in the preindustrial status quo. They especially oppose an industrial society and all the sinful baggage that comes with it.
There are many American educated Arabs who are not Islamic zealots and who are attempting to use their education and Western contacts to improve their society at all levels. There are many who shun education and who have problems in a changing society because they can't compete. They respond by retreating to Islamic zealotry to stop the change.
That's a bit oversimplified. Saddam Hussein is fairly industrialized as Arab despots go, particularly with weapons systems. Despite being secular, he'll use jihad when it suits him.
The Iranian theocracy is hardly dogmatically opposed to industrialization, particulary of its military.
There's not a Holy Warrior alive who wouldn't want the industrial infrastucture to make their own nuclear weapons.
Islam is religious fascism, and far more motivated by antisemitism and antichristianity than by anti-industrialization. European fascism in the 20th Century was hardly incompatible with industry. To suggest that Islam and jihad are inherently incompatible with industrialization misses the mark.