Are responding to me or the OP? It seems you are conflating the two. I am against the implication of the OP's post while he, I assume, is against mine (although I don't think he has read it
My post was a statement, not a question. You would be hard-pressed to find anything other than rhetorical ones in my post. No, Islam, like Christianity, is a social institution.
If Islam wasn't religiously tolerant then why are there so many different new sects and post-Islamic
religions that were created during the time of the Caliph and even the Ottomans (Bahaism)> Just on the top of my head I am aware of the Druze, Ismailis, Yazdis, Ishikism, Zaydism, Ibadism, Alevism, Samaritanism, Ahmadiyya, Quranism, Maturidis, Qadariyah, and finally, Mutazila.
I don't understand how this is in anyway related to Islam and it's theology which is what we're really discussing. Often those who criticize Islam wish to avoid arguments surrounding it's theology lest their ignorance regarding the religion becomes apparent. In the Ottoman Empire slaves were primarily soldiers (i.e. Janissaries) who were taken from their homes and given high-quality education in order to make them effective politicians and generals. However this is purely an Ottoman institution and not to be found in other Islamic Empires. This lack of knowledge regarding any form of Islamic history outside of the negatives is why so many of it's critics fall flat in their arguments. There is simply a great deal of ignorance there and often an unwillingness to cure such ignorance. There is a reason why the best critics of Islam, come from Islam.
Miniskirts and suggestive ads are not an indicator of liberalism. Under the Pahlavis, life in Iran was much more authoritarian than it was today. Freedom of speech was stamped down upon and all who criticized the government were taken by the secret police and tortured until their eventual death. The reason why the Islamic revolution happened was because the only place where one could freely criticize the government was in mosques and this lead Imams to be not just spiritual leaders, but political ones and this is why fundamentalism became popular. Had the Pahlavis been Islamic fundamentalists and cafes along with intellectuals been the harbors of liberty we would've gotten French Revolution 2: Iranian Boogaloo.
Currently Iran, while it's women must wear hijabs, has greater freedoms for it's citizens than the Pahlavi ever gave them. Women, unlike during the Pahlavi era, are now allowed to freely pursue educational activities and go to university. The economy is better and less oil-oriented than the Pahlavi dynasty and there is more political participation than there was in the Pahlavi dynasty as well. Iran managed to vote for a socially-liberal president and succeed in doing so. It managed to have several political parties both liberal and conservative that have actual power in the government. Even communists have representation.
And let's not forget that the Pahlavis were not legitimate monarchs nor related to any of Iran's actual royal families. The Great Powers simply placed a fisherman's family on the throne and called it a day. They had no legitimacy to begin with. Islam is a social institution that adapts to different circumstances.
What gives conservatives more power than they really have is it's sympathizers. Currently, there is a growing amount of secularists in the West who sympathize and share some of the views of Christian conservatives and even go more extreme than the actual views of Christian conservatives. It is no coincidence that the majority of people who attend White Nationalist, Men's Rights, Neo-Nazi, Neoreactionary, and Anti-Liberal meet-ups are predominantly white atheists rather than white Christians.
I have not used the term at all.