I've been thinking again about my earlier comment about the pride issue, and the comments about thick skin. I've been thinking, based on my own direct experience of rural tribal-style cultures, with their typical emphasis on manliness and self-reliance, and pride. Pride in oneself, and pride in one's ideology is not an optional extra. It sustains you when times are hard and bread and water are scarce. In fact I've seen similar phenomena in poorer folks all over, from miners to farmers to cops and soldiers.
If I may say so we're all intellectuals who have a pretty soft time of it. It's easy for us to talk about being more cerebral and not taking offence. But the people we are talking about here are relying on that prickly ironclad attitude to get them through the day. Indeed, to go further, in cultures where justice has to be DIY at best, you need to react violently to any slight to survive. Rather the same way it is in prison.
My conclusion, therefore, is that we should neither retract the knighthood, nor dismiss the reaction. We should state, as we are now doing, that the knighthood was to reward bravery in the face of death threats, not about insulting Islam. This would be an intelligible response on their own terms.