USA Today Columnist Defends Paris Attacks

In the "Opposing view" just after the Paris terror attacks, radical cleric, living in London, Anjem Choudary matter-of-factly asserts that dishonoring Islam is expected to provoke fatal consequences, and the cartoonists, and publishers are, in effect, the villains, since:

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."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/


In his crazy? Middle-ages? view -  The insults were "incitement and hatred", and should have been expected, and I think, banned.

Which speech was more inciteful?  Charlie, or the USA Today column?