I'd be careful of the first two - there are trade-offs to making them into martyrs. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but we need to consider carefully the trade-offs and evaluate the pros and cons of doing each.
Totally on board with discrediting them and making fun of them publicly.
Between these two - what we can call the "hard" pole and the "soft" pole - I'd suggest a "middle" course of putting up barriers to their ability to make an impact. For example, if a radical imam is identified, we can have super-steep fines for each instance of radicalizing speech. Or we can revoke permits for them to have a mosque. Or we can have attacks on the blogs of radical muslims. This has the benefit of making it much less likely for them to be perceived as martyrs, and if they complain they can be easily portrayed as whiners and sore losers.
Trigger warning: politics is hard mode.
"How to you make America safer from terrorists" is the title of my op-ed published in Sun Sentinel, a very prominent newspaper in Florida, one of the most swingiest of the swing states in the US for the presidential election, and the one with the most votes. The maximum length of the op-ed was 450 words, and it was significantly edited by the editor, so it doesn't convey the full message I wanted with all the nuances, but such is life. My primary goal with the piece was to convey methods of thinking more rationally about politics, such as to use probabilistic thinking, evaluating the full consequences of our actions, and avoiding attention bias. I used the example of the proposal to police heavily Muslim neighborhoods as a case study. Hope this helps Floridians think more rationally and raises the sanity waterline regarding politics!
EDIT: To be totally clear, I used guesstimates for the numbers I suggested. Following Yvain/Scott Alexander's advice, I prefer to use guesstimates rather than vague statements.