People know the consequences: Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?

No more CONDEMNING screed against the demands of Islam exists than Anjem Choudry ‘explaining’ that Muslims just cannot be provoked, and that freedom of speech (which will always ultimately be blasphemy to SOME) is a product of our corruption.

From USA Today (and I am glad they published this):

Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.

This is a PERFECT explanation of THE PROBLEM. We are sovereign in our effort to govern ourselves. The people. Nothing else. We may make mistakes, but they are decided upon by US. Here. On earth. People like Choudry are guided by a document THEY have decided to make sovereign above any other consideration. But they are human and have ONLY belief in the suspension of proof to demand others accept THEIR sovereignty, OR DIE.

Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.
Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.
The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.
So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?
It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world’s population was protected.