An article with the lengthy title Yes, Non-Radical Sharia Can and Does Adapt to New Cultures, written by American academic Jeffrey Bristol, was recently brought to my attention on Twitter.
Oddly, the writer does not even attempt to define what he means by non-radical sharia.
The phrase itself appears to be a contradiction in terms, but I'll attempt a definition. Non-radical sharia would abandon the doctrine of jihad, a defining tenet of Islam. For sharia to be non-radical, it would also have to abandon many orthodox practices like disdain for dissenting beliefs, polygamy and wife battery.
Many Western Muslims do not advocate these, but many others do. Sharia cannot be "non-radical" if these practices are upheld.
Bristol's article makes other patently false claims.