Arthur D. Hlavaty

It's pretty clear that for most of these people, "Sharia law" is the only example they have for laws made by religious offcials rather than seperately political officials.

There really isn't a term for that in European history - even at the height of the middle ages, there was Church Law and King's Law. Yes, the King's minsters were often churchmen, and an Archbishop might also be the head of the secular government, under the king. But they were conceptually seperate, even if theoretically always in agreement. Whereas Mohammed was a head of state, and made relevant decisions in both contexts - and that pattern continued.

Yes, for large chunks of history the dar-al-Islam was a much better place to be for a lot of people than any Christian country. But both were governments of men, for men; of upper classes for upper classes; etc. - with occassional impulses of kindness or fairness, some of them part of the local official ideals. Both lots officially extolled charity, for example. But self-determination was not a thing; that's modern. Everyone had their place, and was kept in it forcibly if required. It's just that at times women's place was less bad in Islamic areas.