From my understanding, insistence on everyone following the same beliefs, traditional or otherwise, is the root of such political fights to begin with. There being, in the form of the state, a weapon to wrestle over to bend society to ones will regardless of what the people within it may think, encourages conflict while somehow being claimed as its resolution.

Well...yeah, the fighting stops when one side is all dead. Counting that as peace is horrible though.

So basically if the liberals in this case admitted that since the Islamists want Islamism as a collective condition & not one individually chosen that liberalism in fact doesn't reconcile itself with Islamism or similar politically religious ideologies, their stance would be "what Islamists want is not individual liberty, therefore f*ck 'em".

Which would 1) be true*! but 2) result in the liberals losing.

Though it's not like they're actually winning now, TBH. I don't see a way for them to either, as marginalized as they've been. When the Islamists are the only ones organized then them ending up in charge is inevitable. Maybe they have to try majority absolutism on first before they get to liberalism.

(* - That said, I'm aware that Egypt's "liberals" are unlikely to be anywhere near as liberal as I picture liberalism meaning. But hey, I'm not Egyptian, that's on them)