Re: What’s YOUR problem with Islam/Islamic laws/Political Islam?
a) Pakistan was not established as an Islamic state. IMO, Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan was a ridiculous secular one, framed around western law (ridiculous since the very reason the nation was being created was due to religion! - clearly i am of the view that partition was a mistake). He was not in favor of a theocratic state, but a democratic one where Islamic values would be a guiding light. That said, I believe Jinnah was was a shortsighted selfish man who created a nation in his dying moments (unbeknown to others) only so that he would be worshiped like a hero after death. Jinnah’s vision of a nation being created as the result religious divide, to become one where all religious minorities would be respected, and religious extremism would not take hold defies logic. This was a man that was barely religious himself, was out of touch and knew he wasn’t to going to survive to make his vision a reality, so what did he care about the chances of it ever happening? Potentially he could have done for Pakistan what Atatürk had done for Turkey and guided the country into becoming a secular country based on the principles rationalism and the enlightment…but after his death, no one picked up the mantle and Pakistan descended into darkness, culminating in the rise of Islamic extremism supported by the US as a counterweight to the Soviets in the cold war era, that has entirely destroyed the brains of a great many Pakistanis.
b) I believe that in the modern world, rationality, sound principle and logic should guide law makers rather than religion. To make religion the basis of law results in a culture that is perpetually backward with no room for reform, improvement or criticism. Making blasphemy a crime punishable by death simply speaks to the insecurity of a political power based on religion, and perhaps the religion itself. They fear that people will think for themselves, question their authority, so this is a way to discourage that and encourage religious totalitarianism. Capital punishment in response to “speech”, whether offensive or not, indicates a desire to compel people into doing as they are told, to not speak their minds and shows that those in favor of such draconian measures are not open to argument and do not have the emotional discipline to simply ignore those that may being trying to incite them or dealing with criticism.
c) Fine - as long as they are not based on compelling people against their will to hold their values, and do not promote violence. Obviously not the case for a great many Islamic parties.
d) It should be clear from my previous comments, that I would be completely against such an evolution.