So, you admit that Imam al Azam (the greatest Imam) Imam Abu Hanifa held that "blasphemy" was not a crime that stipulated mandatory death penalty under Shariat/Islam. No point discussing it any further. That following every ruling of Abu Hanifa is mandatory was never the contention.Qol e Marjoh in Fiqh e Hanfi can be replaced with Qol e Rajeh. Hanfis are doing this thing for hundred of years. Hanfis do not follow every ruling of Imam Abu Hanifa in Masail, that is one of the basic principle of Fiqh e Hanfi. Moreover, Islamic state can choose one ruling over another, remaining inside the principles set by Shariah.
Secondly, you can not achieve your target of discrediting or attacking Islamic laws unless you focus your attention on those sources from which these laws have emerged. Beating the drum of an exception in Hanfi law is not enough to tear down the whole argument which is being presented in favour of blasphemy laws. Our argument does not rely on Zaniyaat of Fiqh e Hanfia, instead it is based on Sahih and verified narrations of Prophet A.S, Fatawa of Sahaba and Jamhoor Muhadiseen o Mujtahideen.
As for your assertion that mandatory death penalty for blasphemy is based on Sahih Hadith, again that never had been the majority interpretation in classic Islamic jurisprudences. Unless of course you believe/claim that the greatest of Fiqh Imams were clueless about Sahih Hadith & Fatawa of Sahaba
"Hukm e Sharai" sometimes means different things to the followers of different sects. Federal Shariat Court and the Shariat Appellate Bench of the SC decide (for us Pakistanis) that what is or isn't Islamic/Hukm e Sharai. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis follow Hanafi madhab and the FSC by no means could ignore the position held by Imam al Azam on this matter. And in this case the position held by Imam Abu Hanifa was misquoted (which the court accepted without verification) and it influenced the final judgement given by the honourable court.Does that instance have any effect on Hukm e Sharai? I dont know how is it relevant? Does FSC accept Fiqh e Hanfi as a fundamental source of law? Or the whole argument built by FSC was entirely based on one Qol of Imam Abu Hanifa?
I find mandatory death penalty for blasphemy in direct contradiction with this clear Qur'anic injunction:Article 295 PPC is in direct contradiction with your thought and ideas. Dont try to present your opinions as injunctions of Quran.
And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed, you would then be like them. Indeed Allah will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together - (4:140)
Now Please quote a single verse from the Holy Qur'an that even remotely suggests death penalty for blasphemy and I will accept your position.