Option #3 does not work. It relies on the idea that the person who "has no power" is not part of the religion, i.e. not a believer. Islam has credibility because Muslims believe in it; and it is only because Muslims believe that the Quran is true, and inerrant, that they refuse to change it. Of course, it's an understandable objection - changing a holy text comes with many problems of religious identity as you stated - but it is nonetheless a choice that is collectively made by a religion's believers.
You can compare it, in a sense, to gun rights in the US: responsible gun owners believe they are not responsible for the actions of irresponsible gun owners. Those same responsible gun owners refuse to consider the notion of not allowing people to own guns - which is exactly how 'irresponsible' gun owners come to own them. They are complicit because they choose to continue making the situation possible for irresponsible gun owners to exist. Muslims - by virtue of choosing to believe in Islam - decide, implicitly, that the misuse of Islam is worth the perceived benefit of believing in it. Obviously this isn't a perfect example, but it demonstrates the concept I am trying to convey.
I certainly agree that 'reasonable' theists exist (I put it in quotes, because even a reasonable theist is bound by their religious rules and is not open to all reason). Your example is interesting, because it proves the opposite of what you may believe it does: Saudi Arabia, in its changing of its laws, never once changed them because it thought it was the right thing to do under Islam. It did so only because the international community was shunning them for their practices as you pointed out, and economic and political considerations made them decide to change it (it isn't like the Quran changed in the 1950s, after all). The same reason was more or less publically given when Saudi Arabia allowed women to drive; it wasn't because they had changed their minds on Islamic law, but they had realised they needed better diplomatic status on the world stage.
This flexibility, as you are likely correct in saying, won't extend to changing the Quran. As I said before, this means Muslims are making a choice: the Quran is only unchangeable, and seen as inerrant, because Muslims believe that it is. It is their choice to believe in the Quran, and their choice to say that it is worth the pain it brings when used by those who choose to use it for malicious purposes. In exactly the same way, atheists can be said to be complicit in the bad points of atheism (though since atheists do not impose rules on others, and there are as yet no atheist states in which religious belief is forbidden or punished, these do not exist yet).
Religion doesn't take a short or long view: it takes no view at all. Christianity, Islam and other religions have not changed at all since they became known: the only changes have occurred for non-religious reasons. Saudi Arabia from the previous paragraphs is one example. Christianity in Europe is another - in most of western Europe it no longer holds any serious influence, because numerous wars caused by Christians destroyed its influence, and Christianity was forced to change or be destroyed. Even now the Catholic Church is facing this, because so many around the world revile its negative influence and the pain it creates, and it knows this affects its image and its ability to convert new followers.
You can use any definition of intolerance that pleases you, but that does not make your definition valid. I would certainly agree that, in your specific case for example, the fact that you don't agree with people who question the Quran is not a sign of intolerance, just disagreement. That is not something I can say of many religious believers, and certainly not in past times - but even now.
There are still, even today, many places where you cannot question the Quran in safety. I can only question it because I do not live in a strict Islamic country - a luxury not afforded to all, and afforded to a small percentage of Muslims even today. That intolerance is a major part of how Islam spread itself (just as Christianity did before it) - it is easy to spread a system of belief to the uneducated and the vulnerable, as most were in those times and many are still today, if questioning it will earn the accuser a noose.
I think you might be confusing the difficulty of emigration with the difficulty of emigrating under bad circumstances - a person who has renounced their religion in a country where this is practically seen as treasonous by many will have an extremely hard time emigrating, and may not succeed at all. Most such people do not have much money, or connections, and are forced to leave most of their possessions behind. Certainly emigrating in normal circumstances isn't so bad, but that's only in normal circumstances.
As for your last point, yes - that is an error on my part. I had meant that religious people do not have the right to *impose* their religion on others, but you are absolutely correct to say that they have every right to say and believe that their religion is the only important thing, if that is their belief.
