Pakistani Student Mob Beats Fellow Student To Death For Blasphemy On Social Media

Pakistan continues to remind the West that it remains a country struggling with Islamic extremists — encouraged by the country’s lack of separation between mosque and state.  The latest victim of such extremism is a college student named Mashal Khan who was accused of merely sharing a message on social media deemed blasphemous.  The response of these self-professed godly men in the northern city of Mardan was to beat the victim to death in the name of Islamic morality. What is even more distressing is that the culprits appear to be fellow students.  They no doubt learned this particular lesson from the government itself (and our ally) which still makes blasphemy a capital offense.

A mob reportedly chanted  “Allahu Akbar” during the attack on Khan as they stripped him naked and beat him with planks.  They caved in his skull as other students watched and then celebrated their murderous act.  They wanted to burn the body but apparently were stopped.

Ten students have been arrested.

Some 65 people have been murdered for blasphemy in Pakistan since 1990.

79 thoughts on “Pakistani Student Mob Beats Fellow Student To Death For Blasphemy On Social Media”

  1. And this is why I do not like Muslim extremism, where apostasy and blasphemy are often capital offenses, and mob violence is not uncommon.

    DSS – There is often quite a bit of violence caused by what I would define as extremism. Killing someone for being gay, an apostate, or for criticizing your religion is extremist. Harassing or even becoming violent with other religions because of your own religion is extremist. Trying to force others to your religion or fining them if they won’t join is extremist. Again, that is my own personal definition. And of course, those countries that perform Female Genital Mutilation, forced marriages, forced child marriages, and who treat women as 1/2 of a man in legal testimony or inheritance is extremist.

    So…how many times do all of the above happen in Pakistan, for example? It’s not twice a year. If you want more information, you can GOOGLE “violence against Christians in Pakistan.” Here is an example:

    And it’s not just Christians. If you are not a “good enough Muslim”, you’re a target, too.

    It’s awful. We cannot control how other countries live. But we can feel very disgusted about it.

    1. And as for convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell, I don’t know which is worse – his killing full term babies, or the line of heavily pregnant women who kept his business booming. And these women came even though there was urine on the wall, corroded equipment, and cats pooping on the floor. And some were given STDs from his contaminated equipment. These women would have to go through labor for the cervix to dilate enough to perform partial birth abortions, so they were not spared any trial through labor. These were viable healthy babies. And apparently giving them up for adoption or leaving them at a fire station was too much trouble. They’d rather they were killed the second before their head cleared the birth control, after which their fully developed healthy lungs would have drawn breath and reached the technicality where they would have been deemed “born” and protected.

      It was, indeed, a travesty that he was not caught and stopped sooner, but operated under the very nose of authorities, with a plethora of red flags. The only reason why he was caught and sent to jail was that 3 of the babies were proven to have drawn breath before he plunged scissors into their spinal cords.

      Pro-choice or pro-life, it was horrific.

      1. Karen, the reason Gosnell operated was because the Pennsylvania health inspectorates allowed it. It’s been admitted publicly by civil servants in the relevant departments that they were self-consciously lax in deference to Gov. Ridge’s views on abortion (not shared by his predecessor, Gov. Casey). I’ll wager that’s what they preferred to do anyway. What was Gov. Ridge’s occupation before entering politics? Lawyer. Why do we have the legal regime in abortion law we do? A bunch of lawyers meeting in secret demanded it. What’s the occupation of one Laurence Tribe, who has beclowned himself for four decades generating arguments that the current regime in abortion law is constitutionally mandated? Law professor.

        What does the moderator do for a living?

    2. Try to focus, Karen. The topic of the post was killings for blasphemy.

      1. Although I am prone to go off into the weeds, didn’t you bring up Gosnell, as well as the rarity of similar violence in Pakistan? Whom I agree operated right under the nose of the health department.

        1. My suggestion to the moderator was that he give some thought to what is peers make possible with within driving distance of his home.

          You went into a laundry list of other problems there might be in Pakistan (some of them rather fashionable). Those were not the subject of his post. He usually hauls up something of scant importance which serves to catalyze the juvenile village atheists on this board.

  2. It doesn’t seem to occur to anyone here that something which happens 2-3 times per year in a country which has 150 million people living in it is not a large component of social life.

    I’d suggest if you’re worried about civilization, you might ask why a creature like Kermit Gosnell is permitted to operate lawfully.

  3. The inherent problem with all religion is that included in the warm fuzzy feeling of ‘no need to ask’, communitas, and the pot luck socials is the acceptance that ‘This’ is the answer, ‘He’ is the only answer, and ‘Any Other’ interpretations may be acceptable but not correct. Add, mental and social instability and throughout history, the results have been disgusting. Religion must be put in its proper place as within society, protected by society, and above all subject to society. Every societally advanced nation on earth has evolved through the murder, rape, pillaging, etc to get to this place where the secular rules above all. Regardless of the imperfection of secular rule, the people are now infinitely better off in a secular world than in a world ruled by this or that religions fairy tale, for without any substance, they are all fairy tales.

    Pakistan, India, and to a greater extent the backward countries of the Middle East, are in one or another stage of evolving out of this dysfunctional world. Pakistan and India are attempting to move themselves forward, to progress. The more problematic nations are those that are so entrenched so as to refute the fact that societal evolution is nature, perhaps god itself. Therefore, the countries that adhere the most firmly to any particular fairy tale may be committing the greatest sacrilege of all.

    1. issac,
      On the one hand you acknowledge that the religious will “accept” other interpretations even if they don’t agree with them and on the other declare secularization “rules” above all. The Law rules above all. The law is to protect the rights of all to live freely in their religion or freely with no religion at all. I can put the law in context to defend the natural rights of atheists as well as the religious. Can you?

      1. Olly

        You must have a cognitive deficiency, perhaps not enough sleep. I have stated repeatedly that it is the secular that oversees the religious. That includes the atheists who are attached to religion in their own reactive manner. The fact that a religion, however accommodating of other religions, will accept other beliefs, does not dispel the fact that to adhere to a religion one must believe that their interpretation is The One. Otherwise there would be no religion. It’s kind of like the idiots that vote for Trump because he stated that he and he alone can fix their problems. That is not to say that everyone who voted for Trump is an idiot, but enough were to get that lying sack of sh*# into the White House. The same thing happened 16 years ago with the midget cowboy. How much better we all would be off now if Gore had been elected. Soon we will understand how much better off if Clinton had become President.

        1. “it is the secular that oversees the religious”

          Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

          Neither a religious organization, nor the secular, should be granted too much power over individuals. In either case, the temptation to abuse such power would prove too great to resist.

          Religion operating over a framework of strong individual (or natural rights – Olly), would not have the scope for abuse. The same is true for a secular government. We could just as easily have the dictatorship of Communist China as we could the Taliban of Afghanistan, when any form of government is given absolute control of the people.

        2. “It’s kind of like the idiots that vote for Trump because he stated that he and he alone can fix their problems.”

          While I agree that no one person can solve all our problems, you do realize that Obama claimed a vote for him would cure Anthropogenic Climate Change (the seas stopped rising, etc, etc) and Hillary Clinton tried the exact same gambit (a vote for her would stop ACC.)

          At some point, don’t these politicians realize that the jib will be up with that gambit? If we’re still talking about ACC 8 years after Obama took office, why didn’t he solve the problem of the entire globe singlehandedly?

          It’s like voting for funds to fix our potholed roads in CA. They keep snatching the money that is supposed to go towards the roads, and using it for that infernal train boondoggle, or pensions, or other pork projects. At some point, we voters have to realize that when the next inevitable road tax comes up, not to fall for that trick. (Will voters ever learn???) And the same goes for schools. Every school in CA should have a complete remodel with all the funds we keep voting for, and yet teachers have to beg for supply money and the lead based paint is peeling.

    2. With one notable exception, religions are not waging war across the globe or blowing people up. Most religious people manage to live side by side in a civilized way.

      I understand that you are not religious. Religion is not for everyone.

      At some point, however, the atheist is faced with the death of a loved one, the death of someone’s child, accident, suffering, illness, grief, hopeless situations, or they may see someone with a very debilitating handicap. Without religion or an afterlife, everyone you love, everyone you hate, and yourself, just turn into mud. There is no reunion. No comfort for those suffering with affliction. No happy ending. No justice for the oppressed. No love for the forgotten. No release for the suffering. Only cold oblivion.

      And there is also very little reason not to engage in crime if you think you can get away with it. Why not? Life is short and there is no afterlife to strive for. So why not be a hedonist? Why not lie and be the most miserable fellow possible. It’s not like it matters. And if you get diagnosed with a terminal illness, you could do the most egregious, heinous sins, because it’s not like you’d live until the end of a trial, or have to worry about what everyone thought after you’re gone, or care about how your actions would affect your family…because you’d just have winked out of existence and your remains would be rotting back to its base components, feeding worms. Well, probably not feeding worms with all the formaldehyde of the embalming process.

      What kind of comfort do atheists give their friends who struggle with cancer? Don’t worry. You’ll cease to exist soon. Do they make greeting cards for that? What kind of sympathy card would an atheist craft?

      What a hopeless, depressing, nihilistic experience.

      Religion can bring peace, comfort, courage, hope, and a point to it all, as well as some additional impetus for behaving in a moral and ethical manner. To know that you are loved and cared about at your lowest point can be a great comfort.

      The religious aspect of anyone’s life should be judged on their actions. Does it bring them peace? Is it a positive or a negative in their life? Are they tolerant of others?

      I do not believe that religions, like people, should be painted with a broad brush. Even though I often criticize extremist Islam, I have known many moderate, Westernized Muslims who simply ignore the negative parts of the Qu’ran just like modern Christians ignore much of the Old Testament. For them, it’s a positive anchor in their life.

      1. Your notable exception pertaining to religions living side by side without slaughtering each other, exists primarily in countries with secular rule that protects all religions but in order to be effective in this, must reign above religion. Mankind makes the gods and the religions, not the other way around. A democracy is only as effective as the level of awareness, responsibility to understand, etc. The easy catch makes for a perverse democracy, something like we have, an oligarchy. Politicians bought and sold by and for special interests do not make for an effective democracy. Most of our peer nations with truer and more effective democracies, do not allow excessive private funding of the democratic process. Between Clinton and Trump, almost two billion dollars funded that circus. In order to get better leadership, we need to take special interest funding out of the equation. Bernie Sanders illustrated that better than anyone.

  4. Don’t know why we keep calling acts like this the result of “extremist” beliefs or interpretations of Islam. The pew polling done in the region concerning punishisments for blasphemy would indicate that this is what a large majority of the population in Pakistan think the correct punishment for acts like ‘sharing something on social media deemed blasphemous’.

    1. OK, so it’s really none of our business then. But we do need to protect the citizens of this country from introducing these same elements here, do we not? We should not expect them to act as we believe they should in their own country, but when they come to ours, they should be required to follow our laws. I think it is prudent to review any refugees from that part of the world on a case by case basis before letting them in this country. Of course, it we would stop destroying those countries to begin with, we wouldn’t need to have this conversation.

      1. I’m a big fan of the “Let’em Whale On Each Other” philosophy of foreign affairs, too. When they’re so exhausted by the in-fighting, you just move in and mop up. Worked for the Romans then; works for us today.

          1. Olly – gazelles run with the herd, hoping they will not be taken down by a lion. It is a numbers game.

            1. According to Dave137 they should just lay down in front of the pride and accept their fate. Self-preservation is the basis of all ideologies — one way or another.

              1. Agreed mespo and that would be consistent with a comment made by TIN on the “identity theft” post yesterday. TIN said: ““Inalienable rights” sounds great in theory, but if you can’t enforce a “right” then it doesn’t really exist.” As you stated quite well earlier, “civilization takes work.” Some are just not up to the task.

                1. “Inalienable rights” are what your society says they are and really nothing more. That’s why the fight for that definition is an ongoing battle between freedom and collectivism. It’s also why I like always being in the fray.

                  1. And you know, Olly, lions and gazelle’s are the perfect analogy for that tension between running free and being swallowed by the collectivist pride.

                  2. They are the same in nature as they are in civil society, nothing more. The point of civil society is that those natural rights are more secure in it than outside it. The ongoing battle is in how much government is necessary to secure those rights. Inalienable doesn’t mean they “can’t” be alienated. It means that no law is just if it alienates. As I told TIN yesterday, slavery is an example of society, sanctioned by the “law”, alienating the natural rights of others. Slave laws alienated people from their natural rights; and the infringement of those rights treated people as less than human.

                    1. What a fun exchange about life on the savannah metaphor.

                      I’ve seen a lion charge a fence before at a small private establishment. No way on this Earth could a human being get away. And if you had a loaded weapon with the safety off, you might, possibly, be able to get the gun up in time. But probably not. So glad none of us are gazelles.

              2. “Self-preservation is the basis of all ideologies — one way or another.”

                Agreed. Whether in nature or civil society, we have the natural right to secure “self” without infringing the same right of others.

                If self-preservation is the fundamental driver of our nature; then wouldn’t it be against our nature to believe and argue against the natural right to defend self. It would be, as you stated, like the gazelle that chose to not run but rather put their trust in the environment (society) to take care of them. That might work while the pride is gnawing on some other gazelle, but that’s not security, that’s the consequences of the lion’s choice (vote). That’s not security of self, that’s just the result of “winning” an election.

    1. Well…when a lion takes over a pride he kills all the cubs to bring the lionesses into estrus. Male cheetahs will prevent a female cheetah from returning to her cubs until her body goes into estrus again (and the cubs die.) Most predators begin eating their prey when they are still alive. Chimpanzees wage war on neighboring troops, sometimes eating the young of their enemies. Lemmings convince each other to run off a cliff. Stallions fight the lead stallion for control of the band, and the mares have no choice on whom to mate with. Polar bears abandon their cubs to die when the sparse resources in their environment get too hard to find. A cuckoo lays its egg in an unsuspecting bird of another species to dupe it into investing all that effort into raising it. The alpha female wolf kicks the butt of all the subordinate females when they come into estrus, harrying them incessantly, to keep them from procreating and draining away resources from the pack.

      Do animals lie? Sure. Except they use body language instead of verbal cues, obviously, to transmit misleading information. Zebra, I am going left….no! Fooled you! I’m going right!

      And that’s not even touching on the insect world, which includes behavior such as laying eggs in their living prey to eat their way out.

      Where do people get this idea of either the “noble savage” or moral superiority of nature? Nature is cruel.

      I love animals, but I don’t romanticize living in the wild. It’s beautiful, and should be preserved, but no one dies of old age in the wild.

      1. True enough Karen. The world is a tough place unless people make it not so tough. In most places, it’s law of the jungle. We’ve got a garden in the West but we’re importing the third world and their values. So long garden; hello jungle. Pretty basic societal math.

  5. Blasphemy is about blasting a feminist. Pakistan and the other Stan territories do not have such species.

  6. Justice in Pakistan is kind of like mob justice on American college campus in the name of snowflakes.

  7. God spelled backwards is dog. Beware of God. He works in strange ways. If someone says something wrong then he sends the troops in to make justice. God is following in the footsteps of Woodrow Wilson. That attack in Pakistan is just. No Pakistani would use a computer. East of Corfu the Ten Commandments Don’t Apply. Trump will bomb the bad ones. Do not buy a Pakistani dog. They are sold on-line.

  8. It’s hard to call it extremism when violent acts are done so frequently and by so many people in the name of their god.

  9. This just shows how some cultures are and always will remain in the dark ages. These people reject anything civilized no matter how much others try to drag them into the 21st century.

      1. There are more of incidents like this happening that don’t get reported, here in Minnesota. It’s mostly happening at Cedar/Riverside, but stuff is even breaking out in Eden Prairie.

    1. They don’t ‘reject anything civilized’. Pakistan’s per capita product is at a level not reached in the United States until about 1870. Its life expectancy at birth (65) is at a level not reached in the U.S. until about 1935, About 1/2 the working population is employed in non-agricultural pursuits; about 40% live in urban centers; about 55% of the population over 15 is literate, The country’s homicide rate, at 8 per 100,000, is elevated, but similar to that of the United States 20-odd years ago (what’s been odd is that 22% of the killings in Pakistan are attributable to political violence). The country has had parliamentary institutions in place for 29 of the last 32 years.

      It’s a poor and troubled country with an unattractive culture. It’s not some charnel house

  10. Practicing Muslims, those who worship and enter into “conversations with God”; they develop bizarre delusions about themselves. Through worship, which entails a ritualistic dialogue with God, they develop a simple delusional belief. Through this false belief they end up seeing themselves as God. They not only get to forgive their own wrongdoings and sins, they also see themselves as superiors and purer than the others. Worship of God has created the most corrupt societies as they, through the act of worship, become their own Gods. This is how they justify everything that they do. They justify their hate of others through worship. The root cause of the problem is this “Satanic Worship”, through which they connect, not with God , but with the Devil within them. But they do not know because worship appears so sanctified and beautiful to them. ABOLISH and BAN SATANIC WORSHIP. Make laws which turn Islamic Centers into Non worshipping Community Centers.

    1. Good explanation. All religious centers should be community centers. Socializing with neighbors and caring about others are all positive. Worshiping phantom gods has no redeeming value and is often highly destructive.

      In the same way that these attackers looked for “blasphemy” to justify gratification of their killing instinct, warhawks look for any and all potential “offenses” to justify shooting, bombing, and destroying cities. It’s the killing instinct that is the problem and the cultural justification for gratifying that instinct – perhaps historically used to keep population numbers in check. Now we have birth control. There is no justification for attacking anyone.

  11. “They no doubt learned this particular lesson from the government itself…” Uh, no, they learned it from their book.

  12. I agree with Trump, no more Muslims until they get some lessons about a different life here. The killers should be deported! Other countries are standing up and saying if you don’t like how we live here, please leave.

  13. Beware men of god deciding to protect their god from others. Beware them also when they decide to legislate control over the bodies of others. Beware them when the seize the levers of government to punish those with whom they disagree. Theocrats are dangerous regardless of the relgion the claim to follow.

    1. Most Trump supporters beaten up were done by godless atheist or agnostics.
      However we do have that case where the former Muslim turned atheist blogger is being sentenced to death for blasphemy with the help of Facebook in Pakistan.
      It’s ok if it’s sharia law through the courts do it, not if it’s the local sharia mob…
      Oh America, we are in deep 💩.

Comments are closed.