On July 22, 2019, an internet scandal broke out in Lebanon when a series of religious activists misread the oeuvre of the Lebanese band Mashrou' Leila, rendering them blasphemous, unruly, corrupt, and even meddling with evil spirits. The band had a concert planned for August 9; but the church released a statement condemning the band and their planned concert, after which religious activists physically threatened potential concert-goers. As a result, the event organizers cancelled the event for "security reasons." Drawing on Gilles Deleuze, Gayatri Gopinath, and Marwan Kraidy, by way of Tarek El-Ariss, this paper explores the religious media rhetoric that the church and various religious activists adopted -- whether knowingly or not -- to make a case for Mashrou' Leila's blasphemy. By conducting close readings of religious rhetoric circulated online, and considering the form with which it is circulated and through which it is mediated, this paper argues that the democratic, unregulated nature of social media allows for arguments -- factual and fabricated -- to spread and be shared widely. El-Ariss argues that social media, while hyper-modern on one level, is also in some ways a return to the beastly premodern times; and this Mashrou' Leila incident is a case-in-point -- a return to the 'beastly' that is further facilitated by the Lebanese state's weakness. Ultimately, this paper raises an ethical question related to dialogue and engagement in our contemporary moment. In a world divided between factual and fabricated, religious and secular, civilized and beastly, how can we, as humans, be empathic, especially in cyberspace -- which is mediated by screens and clicks -- we inhabit in addition to our bodily life, such that we are engaged but also respectful, and argumentative but also reasonable, while realizing that "reason" and "reasoning" mean different things to different people.