“You can not reform a religion. If they are reformed, [the original meaning] is separated from it. Therefore, modern Muslims and a modern Islam is already impossible. If there is no separation between religion and state, there will be no democracy especially without equality for women. Then we will keep a theocratic system. So it will end.” – Adonis Asbar, Syrian poet
We would do well to heed the words of Adonis Asbar, who, as quoted above, presciently warns us that there will be no reformation movement for Islam. “Therefore, modern Muslims and modern Islam is already impossible.” Yet the West chooses, imprudently and at our peril, to ignore this glaring reality. We prefer to equate Islam with Judaism and Christianity, as though the scourge of modern man is not Islamic terrorism and the perpetrators are not Muslims; as though Islam did not create the Islamic terrorist; and as though that baseless hatred of the Jew and the State of Israel is not a religiously motivated exhortation of the Quran. We go on pretending that Muslim demands for Western society to retrofit our traditions in order to accord with the religious whims of a seventh century psychopath are not the blatant manifestations of Islamic imperialism. In the same way that we hold a rock concert to celebrate the birthday of Nelson Mandela, a man who, as Lee Jenkins wrote in the Backbencher, “pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilizing terrorist bombing campaigns,” we can also become sophisticated about the brutal and bloody history of Islam and the fact that it really is an insalubrious faith unfit for human beings. Unintelligible to so many of us, and only because we refuse to acknowledge the decline, Western democracy is deteriorating, just as Plato said it would: “Democracy passes into despotism.”
Phocion wrote, “The good have no need of an advocate.” If Islam is a religion comparable or equal to Judaism and Christianity, why have its apologists spent so much time and energy threatening the Western world into believing such a claim? The religion proper and the basic tendencies of its adherents should be proof of these claims, but this has not been the case. As I wrote long ago, you cannot honestly judge a religion by its exceptional characters, but only by how it generally affects the masses who follow its precepts. In this sense, Islam has failed miserably. A long history of Jew-hatred, sectarian violence and backwardness in those countries where Islam the religion has gained preponderance is proof of this fact. And if there is any sort of phobic disorder finding purchase in the Western world today, it is that prudent fear of our diverse societies descending into the darkness of that same Jew-hatred, sectarian violence and backwardness. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus advised us, “What is not good for the swarm is not good for the bee.”
Efraim Karsh wrote, “Islam has retained its imperialist ambition to this day.” This is an aspect of the religion of Islam that has been deceitfully obfuscated and disguised by its apologists. The voluble insistence by advocates of Islamic culture that Western governments should allow Muslim women to wear a veil when being photographed for passports and driver licenses is an example of Islam’s imperialism. The spectacle of Al Quds Day “parades” (essentially platforms for calls for genocide against the Jews of Israel) in North American cities is an example of Islam’s imperialism. The request for prayer rooms in places of employment is an example of Islam’s imperialism. The fact that a sophist like Tarek Fatah is now embedded in Canada’s media and presented as an opponent of Islamic extremism, when in fact his primary concern is the portrayal of Islam the religion as a benign ideology – the very ideology that spawns anti-Jewish extremists – is an example of Islamic imperialism. The insane proposal that Islam’s Sharia law be included in the Western judicial framework is an example of Islam’s imperialism. A great majority of us sit back and allow this to happen, without voicing our opposition to this “creeping” religious obtrusion into our Western abode. I’m reminded here of a famous statement by Joseph Wood Krutch, warning against such insouciant complacency: “Civilizations die from philosophical calm, irony, and the sense of fair play quite as surely as they die of debauchery.”
The issue has always been, and will always be, as far as I’m concerned, whether Islam the religion is to blame for all its inconvenient and disruptive political baggage. I cannot see that Islam was ever intended to be anything other than an imperialistic political movement, the sole purpose of which was to displace all peoples and negate all notions opposed to its nomadic demands. In his book The Second World War, Martin Gilbert recounts that Federal German President Richard Von Weizsacker declared in 1988 that the German nation “cannot make others responsible for what it and its neighbours endured under National Socialism. It was led by criminals, and allowed itself to be led by them. It knows this to be true.” Likewise Islam’s apologists cannot excuse Islam the religion and its “pious” criminals from the culpability both deserve for the extremism they have elicited in every generation since Muhammad’s advent fourteen centuries ago. They know this to be true, although they are not admitting anything. Groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda are justifiably proud of the fact that they articulate real Islam and not one of the ersatz versions fabricated by those intellectual contortionists who daily promise us a “modern Islam.” Because we know that “modern Muslims and a modern Islam is already impossible.”

john spielman says
any attempt to reform islam would mean that muhmammed, Islam’s “perfect man”, was indeed a DEMON POSSESSED MASS MURDERER, THIEF, LIAR, MISOGYNIST, NECROPHILIAC, AND PEDOPHILE FALSE PROPHET!!!
jayell says
“DEMON POSSESSED MASS MURDERER, THIEF, LIAR, MISOGYNIST, NECROPHILIAC, AND PEDOPHILE FALSE PROPHET!!!”
Are you sure that’s all?
Plamen says
ProfIt.
Mark Swan says
Thank You Mr. Devolin, for a very concise and meaningful article.
Concerned Indian says
It’s often said that what is presented to the West or the world in general is a toned down version of real Quran/Islam.
(1) Is it true?
(2) Is there any website or source where a comparison between the true nature of Islam and the cosmetic presentation is offered side by side?
This is being asked since the apologists have been saying that what is understood about Islam is “misinterpretation or misrepresentation”. Thanks,
Kay says
Yes, this needs to be done for the wider public. Most people are still ignorant, as if Islam were just Christianity from another place.
Concerned Indian says
Thanks,Kay for your reply.
Please3 read:–Islamic Jihad by M.A.Khan and Hasta La Vista Europe( Amazone.Com,kindle edition).
Attacks are taking place in Turkey and Pakistan as well as Afghanistan but that’s their problem. and no one should EVER feel–look they are hitting innocents.It’s because the “innocents” nurtured them.Erdogan has already said:-( 1) Moderate Islam is an insult.Islam is Islam
(2) Islam is going to spread the world over though the Western nations are trying to stop this.
Now what does it show?You are told Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic religions–just as we in India are told that they were Hindus( 90% of them are converts)-both these statements just lull us into believing that they are ours and we drop our guard.They try to get your women to produce a blue eyed,blond white Muslim generation and spreading Islam through such “loving” and “peaceful” means.Young girls get carried away by their sweet talk and at times handsome looks.I have finished reading Rosemary Sookhdeo’s book( stepping into the shadows) on why christian girls marry muslims.In India they want to marry our pretty and fair girls from certain communities.Very clever chaps.I am all the while suggesting :-Hasta La Vista Europe from (Amzone.Com,Kindle edition),Islamic Jihad by M.A.Khan( ex-Muslim).The third book is mentioned before these.Regards,
ECAW says
These might help:
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/myths/index.aspx
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/index.aspx
Concerned Indian says
Thanks,ECAW.
I will certainly browse these.Regards,
Yankel says
https://www.politicalislam.com
firefox says
What I find insane is that there is a diametrically opposed version of Islam presented by Islamic apologists and the moderate Muslims in the west that says “Islam is peace and harmony” and additionally, as of 2 days ago, and as a PR spin to the gay-bar massacre, “Islam loves LGBT”.
In the background, the news is reporting 4 more gays thrown from the rooftop in Iraq, a Christian man brutally slain by a murderous mob of Muslims right in front of his wife as they were both mocked that their God wasn’t powerful because he would have saved him from being killed, another airport bombing in Turkey, another young woman killed in Sweden looking after migrants, another gang rape on a train, and a fully shrouded Muslim woman making bomb threats at LAX, etc, etc, etc. None of this in-line with the peace and harmony Islam touted in the free world.
Because Mohammed abrogated peaceful Islam 1400 years ago, the apologists are either calculating, deceitful, liars paving their way toward a smooth invasion of the west -or- they are completely ignorant of the koran and are basing their belief solely on a cultural interpretation of Islam that their parents practiced, but know nothing of the koran. What else could possess them to be adamant in their claims that Islam is peace and harmony and that ISIS is a small minority that high-jacked Islam. To me they are bald-faced lies and deceit, the Islamic takiya in practice. My thoughts are these Muslims-in-name-alone would be killed quickly as apostates if they were placed in with ISIS.
What I find most disturbing and disgusting about moderate Muslims is that there has never been a consistent voice in opposition to the near daily atrocities happening in the name of Islam. Their silence is their approval. That goes for Obama, Crooked Hillary, CAIR (and the like), and all Obama’s appointees, none of which stands against the radical Islamists, but quickly turn to blame the victims.
Every Islamic leader says there is only one Islam, the same one that ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Quida, Al Nufsra, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc follow. It involves strict adherence to Sharia Law and the Mohammed’s command to conquer the world.
I learned alot from watching Bill Warner’s YouTube clips on political Islam that in summary says: that Islam was religious and peaceful for about 12 years in Mecca but produced little fruit and very few converts for Mohammed. So, Mohammed moved to Medina and changed his approach using politics, terror, and war against all non-believers, killing all who opposed him, enslaving their wives, and stealing their possessions. This successful new approach was confirmed by the new convenient revelations he received and he abrogated the peaceful Islam in the koran, and then set on this way terrorizing, killing, enslaving, raping, and plundering his way across the lands to his success. This was how the new “Islam: Believe It or Else” came to be and how the Islamic texts still read today.
And still no one in the west asks the right question: what the hell is the real Islam?? and demands that the apologists publicly reconcile the difference between what they say about peace and harmony and the reality of the newscasts of the terror and killing and rape and atrocities that continue daily while shouts of allah ackbar are yelled.
Bottom line is that regardless what the moderates or apologists say, the koran and the Muslim Brotherhood both proclaim plans for world domination under Sharia Law; the koran instructs Muslims to not befriend the kafir or accept their ways (don’t assimilate); do good only toward other Muslims; lie and deceive if it forwards Islam; to take holy offence at any denouncement of Islam, the koran, or its false prophet or god; and to reject all people and all things not Islam; to consider themselves superior to all other people and to never question that allah is god, Mohammed is his messenger, and the koran is the final word of god on earth; and that to kill unbelievers and gays and really bothersome wives or westernized children and any who would leave Islam is what god-allah wants and is a good thing; and that Muslim women are truly inferior to Muslim men and unbelieving women can be raped and taken as sex slaves; and that you can have sex with a goat, but kill it afterward and sell it to your neighbors.
Islam alone as a life-choice doesn’t fit in a free society – it’s incompatible. As a political system with its Sharia Law, it is in direct opposition to the law of the land and is counter to all aspects regarding free speech, free-choice, personal rights, and liberty. Islam is not only compatible with any other culture or people or political system, it is at war with everyone becasue it says it is superior to them all and must dominate them. So that beggars the question, why the hell do we allow them in and hope they assimilate when they can’t and won’t, and once here all their efforts will be to undermine and dominate us. Islam belongs back in the Midddle East where it can live with itself because their presence here just keeps us all wondering, where will the next attack occur.
Islam is an evil and eternal threat, a greater threat than Nazism ever was – and it needs to be dealt with in the same way. Otherwise there will be no rest for the world. And if not dealt with soon, it may soon be too late to find a solution where a world war won’t ensue.
Concerned Indian says
Thanks,firefox.Please read my reply to Kay as well.
Jay Boo says
Obama’s
“If only we were to show Islam more groveling respect, then Muslims would like us more” meme is not working out so good.
Carmel says
When sheeps will realy love wolves, wolves will not eat anymore sheeps. Love is the solution to sheep -wolves problem . Love is so powerful.
ECAW says
So true. And the lion will lay down with the lamb…but probably only the lion will get up again.
Jay Boo says
Same Jesus theory???
Christianity
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.”
Islam
“Pound your wives into the dirt until it hurts”
Hindu American says
It is perfectly logical. Why should islam change? Islam is supposed to be perfect – dictate of “god” – relayed word by word by an “angel” to an illiterate in a dark cave over a period of time, and that too when that illiterate was doped out/hallucinating.
But, I digress.
If islam is perfect, it is up to other faiths to change and dumb down their beliefs to achieve islamic perfection that is fixed in the se. If the other religions do not, then off with their followers’ heads. Thats how perfect it is. And easy to understand. That’s why the world’s criminals at large and incarcerated felons love it.
Hindu American says
That should be ” that was fixed in the seventh century”.
PSD says
“The fact that a sophist like Tarek Fatah is now embedded in Canada’s media and presented as an opponent of Islamic extremism, when in fact his primary concern is the portrayal of Islam the religion as a benign ideology – the very ideology that spawns anti-Jewish extremists – is an example of Islamic imperialism”
This is nonsense
ECAW says
Why? Please explain.
Angemon says
Why nonsense? I’ve seen plenty of Fatah’s appearences in media. He’s quick to say that islamic terrorists are based on islamic teachings – which is good – but he also deflects the blame to Saudis – which is bad as well as demonstrably false.
Hindu American says
I agree with RS on his characterization of Tarek Fatah. I enjoy watching his YouTube videos but In some ways he is a fifth columnist we all have come to trust.
Margie says
I’d like to hear more about this stance on Tarek Fatah, too. He hits Islamic purists hard.
Yankel says
Nelson Mandela should have accepted apartheid?
WorkingClassPost says
Who said that?
eduardo odraude says
Presumably, Yankel, that is not Devolin’s claim. He is only against treating Mandela as a saint.
This article
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-nelson-mandela-legacy-violence-20131206-story.html
shows that Mandela during a significant part of his career did support the use of violence — at that time no Martin Luther King.
That said, I don’t think Michael Devolin really helps us by criticizing Mandela. It seems to me gratuitous and helpful to those who always want to tar as racists anyone who dares to criticize the totalitarianism of Islam. It doesn’t much matter that Devolin is not a racist. Not just the reality, but the perception, should be avoided, unless we just want to make things harder for ourselves.
I’m tired of reading Islam criticism that in some respects shoots itself in the foot and adds to the burdens of Islam-critics by pointlessly speaking in a way that can easily suggest to bystanders that this is really about racism.
I add that I am however very grateful for Michael Devolin’s bravery, and his normally outstanding writing here at Jihad Watch.
Mirren10 says
”That said, I don’t think Michael Devolin really helps us by criticizing Mandela. It seems to me gratuitous and helpful to those who always want to tar as racists anyone who dares to criticize the totalitarianism of Islam.”
I don’t understand your reasoning. Are we not to criticise a terrorist because he’s *black* ? Maybe we shouldn’t criticise North Korea because that fat toad Kim Jong is yellow …
duh swami says
What dos he mean’; already’? Islam has never b3en ‘moderate and never will
Allah don’t allow it…
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
The basic problem is that Moslems have no history, except for the fake history propagated by its intended victims. Good essay.
miriamrove says
Any form of Islam is a threat. Modern or otherwise. m
Idania says
It is easy to understand Islam. Why people do not see it? Just look at their 1400 history. Conquest wars, killing of infidels, non Muslims, conquest wars, killings of infidels, conquest war…. Besides, killing manual the qur’an, oppression of women, honor killings, slavery of non-Muslim women, mutilation of women, sharia law , plus conquest war, killing of infidels… Are them any thing to look up to?
John A. Marre says
Islam is incompatible with human nature. It has nothing but contempt for all that is good and normal in human nature. It embraces the forces of evil that seek only to destroy and pervert.
berserker says
Just stay in your own countries and spend your time screwing your own people. Please do not come here. That is all I ask. I really do not care whether Islam can be reformed or not. Simply fed up with these sociopaths.
John Marst says
IIslam is a structural fifth column wherever it goes. The length of residence or national citizenship of Muslims is irrelevant.
jayell says
They really are trying to keep these disgusting old hulk afloat aren’t they?
Ravi Ranjan Singh says
For them Infidel is Infidel, be an European, Indian, American, Japanese, Jew, Christian, Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist Atheist, Socialist or any one. The difference between all of the above sets are enough to divide them among themselves, but from’wolves point of view all are prey, and so all are under same threat. Is this threat not enough! to unite against predator? stop counting the reasons (may be a million and a half) that divides and further divides, concentrate on what unites. All the passengers of the ship have same fate, decide to be safe together or sink together?
eduardo odraude says
Ravi,
I agree with you 100%. Am always trying to get right and left to be a little less hostile to each other, so they can better unite to resist the totalitarianism of Islam.
As Ben Franklin put it, using two very different meanings of the word “hang”:
“If we don’t hang together, we will all hang separately.”
Moorthy S. Muthuswamy says
Practice of Islam underwent a reformation until the 1970s. Then it all changed. A visit to Kabul, then and now, is a proof of that:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-myth-empowers-islamic-terrorism-16409
billybob says
That was interesting, though I’m not sure how far to trust the author. I was with him pretty much most of the way until he got to this…
“Central to religious leaders’ influence, it now appears, is the popularity of the narrative that sharia is an all-encompassing “divine law.” But sharia is merely religious leaders’ interpretation of Islam. This is a little secret that Baghdadi may not want you to know.”
I think Robert Spencer has presented us with an abundance of material on the subject. The goals and laws of Sharia are very clear in the texts in main, without any interpretation required. It is only minor details which are conceivably open to endless interpretation. Like for example, should a gay be stoned or thrown of a high building, or perhaps both? That is not clear. Should a woman be stoned for adultery or just whipped? What is clear that whatever the punishment for her, she is always to blame even if she was raped! What I am saying is that it is pretty clear that Sharia is nasty, ugly business, no matter what the interpretation, just from a straight reading of the texts.
ECAW says
That was just my reaction too.
Also in his “familiar” link I see this, “The classic Sharia was not a code of laws, but a body of religious and legal scholarship that continued to develop for the next 1,000 years”. I was under the impression that somewhere between 900 and 1100 the ulema pretty well agreed that the job was done, slammed shut the “gates of Ijtihad” and declared any further interpretation bida.
And his “vary widely” link only shows the confusion of individual imams not the similarity or otherwise of sharia. I don’t think it backs up his claim that sharia is just “a particular religious leader’s interpretation of Islam”.
Moorthy S. Muthuswamy says
That classic sharia is not a code of laws suggests that, it is, by definition, a particular religious leaders’ interpretation of Islam, dictated by their regressive background.
Throw into this mix the fact that sharia reflects “cultural norms of the Arab tribes of a by gone era,” then you have the inevitable confusion of sharia interpretations in applying it in a modern context and its propensity to prescribe violence.
Of course, in reality, sharia is neither divine nor a law.
eduardo odraude says
It did not all change. What is happening now is what Muhammad did 1400 years ago. Yes, the Wahabis represented a “reformation,” an attempt to return to the original Islam as revealed in the core texts. Saudi Arabia is the result.
In a core Islam text, Muhammad says, “kill any Jew who falls into your power.”
He says it on page 369 (553 in the Arabic) of (LINK:) the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad. It’s a “beautiful” story of two brothers, Muhayyissa and Huwayyisa: (To avoid confusing the two brothers, keep in mind that the brother whose name begins with M is the Murderer in the story.)
To speed understanding of the above passage, I introduced into it specific names (in brackets), in place of some of the pronouns (“he,” “him,” etc.) that are in the original text.
Nigel GFF says
“…We go on pretending that Muslim demands for Western society to retrofit our traditions in order to accord with the religious whims of a seventh century psychopath are not the blatant manifestations of Islamic imperialism…”
Great article, I ‘enjoyed’ it.
The immutable nature of the Qur’an doesn’t help. In a sense one can lament the mutable nature of Western values, such ‘Freedom of Speech’. ‘Absolutes’ simply don’t exist, all borders must accommodate Islam. We are commanded, (if you don’t want a label on your record), to fit our minds into that damned Islamic box, bound and bordered by threats. What an awful sorrow it must be for escapees from Islamic hell-holes to find Western society kowtowing to Sharia Law, all in the name of the new god – PC laced with a ‘laissez-faire’, oddly Marxist, ideology.
Soon, I fear, we’ll see just how far our ‘values’ can bend before something snaps and snaps hard.
eduardo odraude says
Nigel,
If you say absolutes don’t exist in the West, I know what you mean, but you are not quite correct. To say there are no absolutes is to unconsciously turn relativism into an absolute. To be consistent, you would have to relativize not only absolutes, but relativism itself. What does that leave us with?
When you relativize relativism, absolutes return, though through a glass darkly. We fallible humans can only get inklings of absolutes — but those inklings are not nothing. And they can be strengthened tremendously, though never perfectly possessed by mortal minds.
Besides, it is absolutely the case that truth exists, even if we cannot say with perfect certainty exactly what the truth is. We can say with certainty that the statement “There is no truth,” is a truth claim, and thus cancels itself out. Thus we are compelled to admit that truth exists. That is an absolute.
billybob says
The speed of light is an absolute limit that cannot be exceeded.
mortimer says
Islam is unreformable because it has been codified to be so.
billybob says
Well stated!
eduardo odraude says
The Christian Reformation was understood as a return to the Bible and a rejection of all the “excrescences” the Catholic Church had added. The Reformation was not a “reform” in the sense of changing Christianity. Similarly, a “Reformation” of sorts has already taken place with Islam, under the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia. They also sought to return to “pure” Islam as it was with Muhammad. Returning to the roots of different religions produces very different results.
Guest says
Whenever I talk to anyone about islam, I emphasise that it’s not a religion but a political ideology, abusing our respect for religions . I think ending its status as a religion is the first step to seeing that it is little more than a fascist, misogynist, antisemitic political ideology that should have as much place in the west as any other fascist movement: none.
eduardo odraude says
Distinguishing religion and state is what we do. Islam, at least in the core texts, is a social program in which religion and state are not distinguished; in which people are religiously passionate about establishing totalitarian rule around the globe, and politically totalitarian about imposing religious passions.
However, my impression of polls of Muslims worldwide suggests that 10% to 20% are truly liberal and want nothing to do with Islamic law or jihad. Perhaps an additional 20% are somewhat liberal. The remaining 60% want at least some aspects of totalitarian Islamic law and are to varying degrees sympathetic with or supportive of jihad to establish Islamic law. Perhaps 1% of Muslims are jihadists or seriously would like to become jihadists. Perhaps 15% of Muslims are fully supportive of those who wish to become jihadists. That’s about 150 million who feel supportive of groups like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Islamic State. And hundreds of millions more who are partly in sympathy with such groups. And about 10 million jihadists or serious-would-be jihadists. Worse, the “radicals” are the ones who have the core Islamic texts on their side.
That’s why Islamic leadership globally is mostly “radical” (the word means going “to the root,” and the leadership goes to the root of Islam in the core texts), and why Muslims have not crushed the Islamic State. In terms of military manpower, Islamic governments could crush IS, as IS has perhaps only 50,000 soldiers. Other Muslim governments together have millions of soldiers. But Muslim governments don’t crush IS, because IS has the core texts on its side.
ECAW says
Very much disagree. In my view Islam is both a religion and a totalitarian political system. Why does it have to be one or the other?
eduardo odraude says
Earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad is available to read for free online, here:
https://archive.org/stream/TheLifeOfMohammedGuillaume/The_Life_Of_Mohammed_Guillaume#page/n0/mode/1up
You might want to skip the first hundred pages or so, which deal with the time before Muhammad was alive.
ECAW says
Thanks.
vivienne Leijonhufvu (@goldaleijonhufv) says
A brilliant and erudite piece by this gentleman. He is absolutely right and it is up to us to deal with ISLAM and sent it back to where it belongs in the deserts of antiquated Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Maky Lemur says
ISLAM DELENDA EST.
Manuele says
ONES QUESTION IS; WHO IS GOING TO START THE REFORMATION OF ISLAM? BECAUSE FROM WHAT YOU AND I HAVE ALREADY KNOW, NONE OF THEIR SO CALL LEADERS IS CAPABLE OF DOING ANYTHING. ALL THEY’VE BEEN DOING WAS PUT INTO ACTION FOLLOW A MASS MURDERER, THIEF, LIAR, MISOGYNIST, NECROPHILIAC, AND PEDOPHILE FALSE PROPHET WHAT HE WROTE IN THE FILTHY BOOK CALL THE KORCRAP!!! AND I SAY THAT THAT WAS ALL THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING MURDERING, RAPING OF CHILDREN BOYS AND GIRLS/ WOMEN, , STEALING.OF CHRISTIAN PROPERTIES. I SAY THAT THEIR BRAINS HAVE FROZEN IN THAT WARP. THAT IS WHY THE ONLY THING TO DO IS ANNIHILATION OF THE FACE OF THE EARTH.