“Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.”
Annual Report 2003
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2003_ENG.pdf

This follow-up report by the Council of Europe in 2016 is even more damning:

“For the purposes of this study, it is essential to define Sharia law, its sources, its legal force and its
problematic aspects in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Sharia law is understood as being ‘the path to be followed’, that is, the ‘law’ to be obeyed by every Muslim.
The prescriptions of Sharia law originate in the Qur’an, held to be a work that is ‘perfect and unchangeable’. The Qur’an constitutes the primary source of law…
In this study I shall be looking at the general principles of Sharia law…

In Islamic family law, men have authority over women. Surah 4:34 states: ‘Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme….

In criminal cases, cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments are authorised by Sharia law, including death by stoning, beheading and hanging, amputation of limbs, and flogging…

Apostasy results, firstly, in the apostate’s civil death, with the estate passing to the heirs, and, secondly, in the apostate’s execution if he or
she does not recant.

non-Muslims do not have the same rights as Muslims in civil and criminal
[sharia] law which is discrimination on the ground of religion within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention.
[This is functionally no different to the Nuremberg laws]
http://www.assembly.coe.int/Committee/JUR/ajdoc282016.pdf

This report resulted in the passing of Council of Europe resolution 2253 (22/01/2019) which states:

The Assembly considers that the various Islamic declarations on human rights, adopted since the 1980s, while being more religious than legal, fail to reconcile Islam with universal human rights, especially insofar as Sharia is their unique source of reference.

Paragraph 6 states which articles of the HR convention are contravened by sharia (10 of the 15 primary articles)
https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=25353

The UK FCO delegation voted for that resolution.

The final point to be made here is that the ONLY definition of jihad in Islamic law is as this US military briefing note states:

“to war against non-Muslims … signifying warfare to establish Islam”

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Joint_Staff/13-F-0117_DOC_09-course-materials-perspectives-on-Islam_and_Islamic_radicalism.pdf

Until the above facts are recognised as the starting point for any discussion of Islamic radicalism, we will be going down blind alleys and following false trails.