There are two answers. First, the 50000 foot view. All major religions have multiple "radical" elements. The concept of what is "radical" is itself relative to what is considered mainstream at any portion in history. For example, Christianity itself was originally an offshoot of Judaism that was considered "radical" enough to be persecuted specifically by Rome, which had fairly open policies toward religion in general.

So, all that said . . .

What you likely consider to be "radical Islam" today is Salafism. Specifically, you are likely referring to the "physical jihad" branch branch of Salafism which is associated with Sayeed Qutb.

Qutb was an Egyptian writer and political activist who wrote extensively about what he saw as a materialistic and sexually deviant Western culture. He was highly critical of its influence over Islamic peoples. His writings were influential in Egypt through the 1940s, and became part of the country's official curriculum at both the secondary and post-secondary levels. He spent time in the US, but rather than becoming more accepting of Western culture, his views became even more critical. Upon returning to Egypt, he joined the Muslim Brotherhood and began writing for their cause.

In 1952, Gamal Abdel Nasser ousted the pro-western Egyptian monarchy. Initially supportive of Nasser, Qutb and the Brotherhood rapidly found themselves at odds with the new regime. (Does this sound familiar?) Qutb was nevertheless himself offered numerous official positions in Egyptian government. He saw this, probably correctly, as an attempt by Nasser to force a split in the Muslim Brotherhood, thus dividing them to the new regime's advantage. Thus, he turned down every offer, gaining ever more credibility with the increasingly hardline Brotherhood. Eventually, he was involved in a plot to assassinate Nasser, was discovered, and wound up on the wrong end of a noose.

Nevertheless, Qutb's writings and philosophies remained very influential in Egypt, as did the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, his influence spread both east and south, throughout North Africa and the Middle East. One of his students was a dude you may have heard of named Ayman al-Zawahiri. Also an Egyptian, al-Zawahiri was less academic and more militant than his mentor Qutb; he went on to become a leader in the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, known for such things as killing Anwar Sadat. This organization also adopted a number of operational concepts which are carried on by Islamic terrorists today. Some of these traits including a flat, cellular organizational structure, targetted assassinations, and the prevalent use of IEDs.

Now, al-Zawahiri was eventually kicked out of Egypt and then Africa writ large. However, before he left, he became buddies with a young upstart named Osama bin Laden, a Saudi from a wealthy family of engineers and architects. Bin Laden gained notoriety from fighting the Russians in the 1980s, and was held in particular esteem because he was a wealthy guy who had left the high life behind to go full jihad on the Soviets. His organization in Afghanistan began referring to itself as simply "the Base," or, in Arabic "al Qaeda." You likely know the rest of his story.

Since then, radical Islamic movements have spread through much of Africa, the Middle East, the Levant, and South East Asia. The most powerful of them is ISIS/ISIL. This organization is an order of magnitude more potent than AQ and its branches. It has the capacity to fight regional state actors conventionally, something AQ never could. It is, however, more localized.

Ultimately, all of these movements share two things in common. This is an intense rejection of Western culture and its influence in regions they feel "should be" beholden to Sharia law and a broad willingness to use violence to remove the same. While he was certainly not the first to criticize Western culture and perceived imperialism, the guy whom these groups can most directly trace themselves to is Sayeed Qutb.

Short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: The radicalization of Islam in the Middle East ties into the division of the region by the western powers after WWI, and further during the Cold War, when the U.S. (not only, but in particular) supported the rise to power of radical religious figures in opposition to communist/leftist parties & figures who might be sympathetic to the Soviet Union, and therefore potentially threaten U.S./U.K. access to oil in the region. This included aiding in the over-throwing of democratically elected governments in favor of autocratic but U.S./U.K.-favored leaders - most notably the U.S.-led 1953 coup d'etat in Iran, when Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown. The 1978 Iranian Revolution began as a popular uprising against the Shah who replaced him.

For more extensive reading on the subject:

Inventing Iraq by Toby Dodge (I have some major issues with Dodge's conclusions post 9/11, but the historical analysis that makes up the majority of the book is solid)

Spies in Arabia by Priya Satia, and Lawrence in Arabia are good histories of imperial ambition during the WWI period and its after-effects

Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan for the political maneuvering of the Western powers

A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin

I also recommend Edward Said, if you're looking for cultural analysis as well as history

Like others have mentioned in this thread, it depends on what you mean by "radical Islam." If you mean the current radicals who take Wahabi/Salafi style of orthodox Islam and add violence to the mix, then not really. This is a 20th c. development.

Violence associated with Islam is not new. Just as violence associated with Christianity is not new.

With this topic in mind, it is probably a good idea to take a quick read of Edward Said's Orientalism. It will help with awareness of the deep-seated cultural history in the West of assuming the "East" and Islam to be inherently violent/oppressive etc. Maybe it will help you understand why it seems like Islam is only known for terror/oppression in the "West."

Originally Orientalist was a term used for scholars who specialized in the study of the Middle East. But, Edward Said (and a few scholars before him) began to use it to describe how scholars, often from the "West," generalize and talk down to "the East." He described Orientalism as a political vision of reality, where difference is promoted, with the "West" being rational, fair, masculine, progressive, chaste and the "East" passionate, religious, fanatical, traditional, timeless/unchanging and sensual.

This Orientalism has become ingrained in many elements of culture in the West. From kitchy harem-themed parties, to Disney's Aladdin, stereotypes of Muslims/Islam so popular in culture here are far from flattering. Jack Shaheen gets into the pervasiveness of these stereotypes, especially in hollywood in his book and film Reel Bad Arabs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lugFgJn9krI

So I didn't really answer your first question, but maybe I shed a little light as to why people like to focus on the radical elements rather than on everything else in Islamic history.

If I might slightly violate rules of the sub, I would like to recommend two autobiographical sources that OP and others might be interested in reading.

The first is "The Islamist" by Ed Husain. He writes about his childhood in a more Sufi-oriented family, his gravitation and activities as a political extremist and then his journey of rediscovering Sufism and founding Quilliam, an organization dedicated to fighting against political Islam.

The second is written by another founder of Quilliam, called "Radical" by Maajid Nawaz. Maajid was significantly more politically radical than Husain. They both crossed paths earlier in life and were friends and compatriots in their Islamist times. Nawaz spent time in an Egyptian prison and underwent a very radical turnaround.

Both authors are British and both books are very interesting, providing some background on how radical groups in Europe and elsewhere recruit and operate. Husain's book is the better of the two, I think, and also addresses the history of Islamism.