If you're not here for debate then what are you here for? Looking at your posts, it seems you're here because of hurt ego, unable to let go and getting nothing out of it other than frustration.
I'm using this thread to improve on organizing and verbalizing my opinions, expressing them more concisely. I have a tendency to be too lengthy and I need to really work on that to improve efficiency. I still write walls and they're still too long. It would be better if you were a verbal sparring partner instead of a simple static punching bag that provides little more than a reflective surface. It's still training though, otherwise I wouldn't get anything out of it. But I'm getting less and less out of it with you because you make me repeat myself over and over, so I'm not getting any new challenges. Now you're going to call me a racist again because I compared you to a bag which contains sand.

If you didn't effectively neutralize his arguments and he brings the same points again, the fault lies with you, not him.
I looked up the quotes (plus cross referenced various sources and translations) as I didn't know them all so I learned something from that.

Big time logical fallacy here on your part. My point was that I did not make any racist attacks in this thread nor have I seen anyone else making any racist attacks in this thread.

If a dark skinned Muslim in France gets attacked and the motive of the perpetrator is proven to be racially driven, then it is a racist attack. If he just gets mugged, it's robbery and not racism. If he gets mugged because he is dark skinned, then it's both a robbery and a racist attack. If the victim gets attacked for being a Muslim, then it is a hate crime. If the victim gets attacked for being dark skinned -and- for being a Muslim, then it is both a racist attack and a hate crime. All racist attacks are hate crimes but not all hate crimes are racist attacks.
If you would claim that an attack on a brown Muslim (for being a Muslim) is automatically not only a hate crime but a racist attack and on the other hand don't equally lament racist attacks on white Muslims (for being Muslims) then you're being racist towards white Muslims. Just saying, since you're playing up racism as being a big part of your cherished "Islamophobia"

A nonsensical, illogical and ultimately powerless term, Pat Condell nicely explains why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ6FpabknY

A couple quotes from the video:

"Muslims who find that their religion is viewed negatively should have the good grace to stop skulking behind this slanderous word"

"and every time we hear the word Islamophobia, the divide gets wider and the mistrust grows."

"that word is just so discredited and so provably statistically false that anyone still using it with a straight face merely shows the depth of their own dishonsty and their absolute contempt for the intelligence of everyone else"

Your posts alone are sufficient reason to recognize brainwashing and defective education, the Pakistan tag just allows me to be fair enough and shift the burden of responsibility away from you and towards government and society at large. But now that you're a grownup with access to the internet and the opportunity to engage with people who have different ideas, the circumstances that would have excused you (or any of us in your shoes) as a child no longer apply, hence I can't take it easy on you. If I would, it would be racism of lower expectations.

Your wish is understandable, but the way you're going about it is not working, mainly because your replies are too disconnected from the statements you're trying to correct.
Since you have displayed the logic capacity of a punching bag, of course you're not going to logic anyone out of being a racist. And considering the fact that the racists you are supposedly fighting in this thread are imaginary, it is a pointless occupation indeed.
Anyway, here's an tounge-in-cheek instructional video on how to be a "racist", very relevant to this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY_DqzLGpCk

Here's a most important detail you missed in your argument:
The maximum punishment for blasphemy under the English laws ranged from one year to 10 years in jail, with or without a fine. No mention of life in prison or even death sentences there. That was later on added by Islamists using religious interpretations as justification. Which makes current blasphemy laws in Pakistan an Islamist thing, regardless of who first codified earlier laws.

And that's not even taking into account all the extrajudicial blasphemy related vigilante murders by unofficial Sharia courts and individual civilians in Pakistan which I guarantee you have nothing to do with any English laws but very much to do with superstition (aka religion) and/or personal vendettas using religion as a pretext to kill. Which, unfortunately, makes it a religious issue in both cases whether you like it or not.
In order to prevent religion from being a pretext - at least for state sanctioned punishments, state and religion need to be separated as much as possible, ideally 100%. That would take care of part of the problem but you would still have all the vigilante violence and societal suppression using religion as justification.

Who and what to blame to what exact amount is complicated but religion is the one common factor in the equation any way you look at it, therefor it makes no sense to categorically defend religion by sabotaging any necessary debate with deflections and get all worked up and throw around with claims of racism. It's entirely counter productive, and it's exactly what you are doing.

Oh really, where? Post a link if you're trying to "quote" people like that. It's not a successful distraction attempt otherwise.

A link is necessary so one can see exactly how you're twisting things around this time, might be quite educational.