The dhimmi status was also offered to other groups, I don't think you are more able to interpret the Quran and Sunna better than the scholars who saw that to be legal.
I am not interested in how some Muslim leaders interpret the Qur'an. The verse regulating dhimmi targets the People of the Book rather than all non-Muslims.
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture
as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. (Surah 9:29)
If Muslims offered that status to all non-Muslims, they believed that even idolaters and atheists belonged to the group of the People of the Book, which is quite ridiculous.
I'm talking about the concept of dogma in general, not a specific dogma.
You cannot impose your Islamic dogma on people who are not Muslims. This goes against your "There is no compulsion in Islam" rule.
A dogma is simply an idea that a group of people ought to accept regardless of their own opinion concerning it. Like wearing a helmet for motorists.
This is not a dogma, but a rule. Rules are subject to change whereas dogmas never change.
Nothing can be separated from one's religion. If the Law tells you that you can't work in sundays but you helped making a law that, somehow, forces people to work that day, it means that you are convinced that the working in sunday is better than not, which means that you have instated yourself in a higher stature than the instater of the Law.
Which Law are you talking about? The Law of state or the Law of God? According to Christ, whom I follow, these were separate. How can you say nothing can be separated from religion when Christ made that separation?
Likewise, if you believe that God says that the acceptable stance on warfare is pacifism, but you supported the formation or sustenance of an army in any how, this means that you have proclaimed yourself as a better law maker than God.
Give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar, and to God what belongs to God. The earthly kingdoms form armies to survive. You cannot say the same about God.
How about invading land for intellectual differences? This covers all cases.
Intellectual differences? What does this mean? Do academicians and scientists join forces to invade the land of the ignorants?
Is this even an Orthodox thing to say?
May the almighty guide us all.
In terms of faith, Islam is not different than Enlightenment as both want to destroy Christianity by replacing it with another philosophy.
In terms of freedom, Enlightenment is much better than Islam as it does not turn Christians into "legal slaves" in their own land.