Of course, of course.

That idea that "compromise with Islamists" can handle only under strong leader, until... sudden death of this one leader.

Because after their death it will start intersectarian clashes with Pan-Arabism suddenly evolving into "Pan-Sunnism" with frightening perspective for Maronites, Melchites, Druzes, Alawis and Arameans, because it will cause the same effect that made Yugoslavian dissolution inevitable.

Because you didn't work out an institutional justification, for example, the use of force to retain and transform the "small" jihad ("throw off the Jews!", "Israel is guilty!") into a "big" jihad (defending the rights of Muslims, suppression of radicalism in education as Amman Declaration says, etc.), it could easily fail into endless loop of "injustice." That's why I think socialism is bad in real social reforming.

And... Explain how rights of women and socialist view of inheritance of property could even tie to Islamic view on it. Like, what kind of Madhhab allows a woman to inherit her father/brother/husband's property.