Your opening question was cryptic, and I wasn't about to spend much time interpreting its meaning. I appreciate constructive feedback, but your comments read to me more like trolling, like rude, contrarian quibbles.

Yes, religion is part of life, so those who have a general sense of humour might easily apply it to religion--unless that's specifically prohibited by a theocracy. God would have created life, so if he permitted joking about life, why would he have prohibited joking about religion as a part of life? The inconsistency would be Islam's.

You're saying the hadiths are part of "the most extreme fundamentalist militant Islamic organizations"? I quoted from the hadiths to show that Muslims prohibit blasphemy. Plus, the Muslim riots against the Danish cartoons happened all over the world, not just in fundamentalist circles. When was the last time you saw Jews rioting in the streets because someone insulted Yahweh or Moses? That's the cultural difference I'm trying to explain here.

Yes, the fact that a society has some laws or principles on the books doesn't entail that the society follows those laws. That's why, in addition to citing the Islamic scriptures, I pointed to the actual rioting against the Danish cartoons. The bulk of Islamic practice matches up with those laws, possibly because the latter have had a massive chilling effect.

Your talk of bigotry is ad hominem, which doesn't interest me. I don't hate anyone I don't know. I'm talking here about cultures, not individual people.

Yes, outlawing blasphemy might have been in reaction to actual tendencies to blaspheme. That would suggest that Muslims aren't genetically inhuman or incapable of entertaining comedy. That would all be consistent with my thesis, since what I'd be explaining in that case is the insistence on restricting those natural comedic impulses with the laws against blasphemy. Desert culture would help explain that insistence on some form of purity or simplicity.