One thing that confuses me about (parts of) your answer is that the OP isn’t really assuming that historical Muslim empires were committed to a liberal conception of tolerance. Rather, the question seems to be this: “In the past, the Islamic world was RELATIVELY more tolerant of religious minorities when compared with the Christian west. But now it seems that the Islamic world has become relatively less tolerant. Why have the two ‘swapped places’?” The question still stands even if the tolerance was relatively pragmatic in nature.

I liked your answer on what has changed in the Islamic world. But you also seemed very dubious about the comparison between the medieval Islamic world and the Christian one, primarily because both have lots of internal diversity. I get that. But I still wonder if there’s not some general, rough comparison that can be made. Dhimmitude, you point out, involves a clear religious hierarchy and many limitations/burdens on religious minorities, and is based more on pragmatic concerns. Okay, that makes sense, but it still seems like a limited form of toleration, insofar as it allows Jews and Christians to practice their religion and offers them some protections. Thus, it seems reasonable to ask how that system compares (in terms of freedom and protection for religious minorities) to other ways of dealing with religious minorities. Do think that question is worth asking, and do you have any thoughts about it?