Things are like this. People who are concerned about the loss of freedom in their country (i.e., Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, Pamela Geller, Theo Van Gogh, etc.) express their thoughts in a way that is completely in accordance with the laws of the country in which they are living. Then Muslims act in complete accordance with Sharia law by killing those who want to protect their freedom and who didn't infringe any laws. Later on, Muslims that have not taken part in the attack claim that Sharia law has nothing to do with Islam (???!!!!) and that they are afraid of a backlash against their community. The backlash never occurs, but the attacks which are perpetrated in accordance with Sharia law increase while the liberties of the countries decrease. Furthermore, the article says that one of the Muslims said: "Incitement is a crime according to our laws". To which laws is he referring to? Certainly not to those of the USA. How can he claim that the attack has nothing to do with Islam if he clearly admits that his laws (the laws of Islam) are different from those of the country in which he is living?