Over at Yes and No there is a very interesting post about the justification of brutality through moral reasoning:
Observing his case, I noticed that one strange characteristic of the Islamist mind (or perhaps it is the tribalistic mind, the primitive mind, or just the violent mind) is that it ceases its moral reasoning after a goal has been decided, such that the means to accomplish that goal are treated in a frighteningly amoral way. Once stealing is declared wrong — as it should be — chopping off hands is an act considered amorally, as if psychopathy kicks inexplicably at some point. It does not matter that mutilating another person is much more immoral than stealing could ever hope to be, as long as it accomplishes the goal it seems justified.
This process is illustrated by the horrible events preceding the death of Fanish Masih. A man is accused of throwing a chapter of the Quran into a drain, and a church is burned and a mob descends on his village, burns a church and forces thirty families to flee. When the police show up, do they consider the terrible injustices that have been perpetrated on this man and his community? No — they arrest him. The entire weight of the law and the moral outrage of the muslim community have decided that no punishment is too harsh for the (alleged) crime of blasphemy.