As-salaam `alaykum,
There in no need to kill others whether they are Muslims or not since it is only the one who has given life to the creations who has right to take it (life). But as for the french magazine, the Muslims scholars must take a step towards those who did so. Such people must realize that what they did is wrong... they must be convinced of such fact and that may be happenrd via a "reasonable punishment" for example stop dealing with the concerned part in terms of business instead of asking them for apologies. That is exactly my modest opinion.
Jazakallah Khayrun Sister. My point was there are differences in civil liberties; between those deemed acceptable to have full rights (and in some case 'extended rights' such as the above) and those not embraced in the same way because the State wishes to view them differently.
In this case, the example is of Muslims. Any Muslim who would repeat the news anchor's words would not enjoy her ability to assert her independence under the concept of 'free speech'. It also does not matter if she would be actually capable, willing or likely to put her words into action, it is about a contradiction in 'concept' and 'theory'.
The disparities in constitutional liberties may increase in time, at first under the guise of 'anti-terror legislation' and then expand to include regular, normal, patriotic and secular Muslims.
In the UK itself new laws have come into place which seek to control certain opinions alone and can lead to arrest and incarceration. At present they relate to 'anti terror' statutes, but it may not be long before legislation does not have to be enshrined under 'terrorism' alone.
However, it is also interesting to see that discretion for what constitutes 'extremism' is retained by the authorities alone with no necessity to explain, defend, expound or facilitate what is defined as being so; it can simply be what the State, security forces, organised anti-terror networks that assist the State or British intelligence decide to be so.
