“We now have two parallel legal systems.”
Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated a pair of articles from that show how far the implementation of sharia law has already proceeded in the Netherlands. He has added a footnote to the articles, which may be found at the bottom of this post.
The first article is from HP/De Tijd:
Sharia courts already exist in the Netherlands
By Wouter Sinke
Geert Wilders wants to ban sharia courts as soon as it appears that they operate in the Netherlands. In Parliament he is trying hard to avoid a repetition in the Netherlands of British circumstances. In the UK no fewer than 85 Islamic courts are operating.
“Pure Wilders-mania,” according to Prof. Dr. Fokko Oldenhuis. “Detesting age-old ecclesiastical dispute-settling is not consistent with the ancient tradition that we have in the Netherlands,” the professor of Religion and Law at Groningen University says. Solving disputes with sharia can even be positive, according to him.
Fortunately for Wilders’ peace of mind, according to Maurits Berger, professor of “Islam in the Western World” at the University of Leiden, there are no sharia courts operating in the Netherlands, as he affirms on the opinion page of the newspaper NRC Handelsblad. Seemingly it is not all that bad.
Or is it otherwise? Because polygamy and marriages with minors are daily occurrences.
This does happen in various mosques, as interpreter and writer Nahed Selim states in the same newspaper, NRC Handelsblad. In Rotterdam it is even a weekly event. Marriages with more than one bride [bigamy and polygamy] are neatly recorded with the registrar’s office of the city. Why is the government not in any way aware of this?
According to Nahed Selim, this is because the Central Bureau of Statistics views these registrations as administrative errors and leaves them out of its calculations. The same applies to marriages with underage brides: error. Even though this has certainly been registered sometimes, it does not “exist”.
Nahed Selim calls on politicians to close down mosques that are practicing sharia. According to him this can be done based on the verdict of the European Court in Strasbourg from 13-02-2003, that states that sharia jurisdiction is in conflict with the principles of democracy. 
Sharia in the Netherlands is already broadly implemented
By Nahed Selim
While professor Maurice Berger determines that there are no sharia courts at all in the Netherlands, I for my part determine that in the Netherlands sharia sentencing actually already does takes place.
Whether that sentencing happens in a room that carries the description “sharia court” or not makes little difference to me. The point is that the Islamic rules on marriage, divorce, child custody, parental custody, alimony and inheritance are applied according to sharia, while those rules are not consistent with Dutch law. The clearest example of this is polygamy. I have known for a long time that in some mosques marriages are closed and dissolved — including polygamous marriages.
On September 19, 2008 De Telegraaf reported (under the heading “polygamy is neatly registered”) that in Amsterdam 173 men are registered with two legitimate wives. Even two men with three wives. In other major cities the same thing occurs. Last year in this newspaper, Mr. T. Verhoeven, spokesman for the municipality of Rotterdam, also admitted it. According to him, polygamous marriages are registered almost every week in Rotterdam.
It is unfortunate that the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) removes that data later. They think these are administrative errors. That is why there is no official nationwide data on polygamy. (And here we only talk about the registered polygamy. The size of the unregistered polygamy is probably much higher.)
The same applies to marriages with underage girls [minors]. These are usually not registered, but sometimes they are, and yet these don’t exist, according to CBS.
In fact, we now have two parallel legal systems: for non-Muslims there are bans that do not apply to Muslims. This is typical of the Dutch attitude towards the Islamization of Dutch society. Things happen, but the government knows nothing and also doesn’t want to know it. They just throw the data away and then it is dissolved.
Even when statements by imams are made in the back rooms of mosques with the consent of the faithful, I think the Netherlands should not allow this to happen. That Catholics and Jews also practice religious rules, as Berger suggests, but that is their own business. According to their rules, most likely apostates and gays do not have to be beheaded, and disobedient women will not have to be beaten by their husbands.
Because everything in sharia does discriminate against women: marrying a non-Muslim is not allowed by sharia, and divorce is not allowed, unless with the consent of the husband. For his part the man, whenever he wants, may disown the woman. Even a little text message that reads “I disown you” is sufficient (according to a sharia court in Malaysia). But if the man changes his mind within three months, he is allowed to take his ex-wife back. The parental power is always with the father, the mother may take care of the children, but he is in charge.
In Islamic countries there are thousands of divorce cases waiting for more than ten years on a decision of the sharia court. These are obviously divorce applications by women. The men in most Muslim countries do not even need the approval of the court.
For all these reasons I am against sharia law in the Netherlands. According to sharia, a woman is only worth half a man. She inherits half of what her brother gets. In a court, her testimony is worth half that of a man.
We should not have let it get this far in the Netherlands. Mosques that are practicing sharia law should be closed down. The Minister claims that there is no legal basis for that, but on the contrary, I think that there is: the ruling of the European Court in Strasbourg (13-02-2003). That ruling states that sharia law is contrary to the principles of democracy. The ruling arose from an appeal that the banned Turkish Refah Party filed against Turkey. 
I am of the firm opinion that the Netherlands, with this ruling in hand, can close down some mosques, when they actually practice sharia. The ruling by the European Court of Justice overrules that of the Dutch courts.
The permissiveness of politics towards fundamentalist Muslims must stop, even for the sake of moderate Muslims. The ghettos should not be institutionalized by permitting parallel law.
And even if half of the Muslims in the Netherlands are in favor of such law, there is still another half that are opposed to it. This half is the better ally, because they are not hostile towards the West and would like to live under the same laws as other citizens. Just read websites like “Muslims against sharia“, “Women against sharia“, “Women living under Muslim laws“, “No sharia“, “One law for all“ and realize that all over the world people are fighting to try get out from under the sharia yoke.
If you want to help Muslims, then help the right group, and not the fossilized fundamentalists who want the next generations to grow up under a ideology that is hostile to women.
 In 2003 and 2004, the European Court for Human Rights ruled that “sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy, because the sharia rules on inheritance, women’s rights and religious freedom violate human rights as established in the European Convention on Human Rights”:
2003, Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, § 25, § 123, ECHR 2003-II;
25. The Constitutional Court observed that secularism was one of the indispensable conditions of democracy. In Turkey the principle of secularism was safeguarded by the Constitution, on account of the country’s historical experience and the specific features of Islam. The rules of sharia were incompatible with the democratic regime.
123. The Court concurs in the Chamber’s view that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy, as set forth in the Convention:
“72. Like the Constitutional Court, the Court considers 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. The Court notes that, when read together, the offending statements [of the Refiyeh party and Islamists as Erdogan], which contain explicit references to the introduction of sharia, are difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principles of democracy, as conceived in the Convention taken as a whole.
It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges 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 intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.
… In the Court’s view, a political party whose actions seem to be aimed at introducing sharia in a State party to the Convention can hardly be regarded as an association complying with the democratic ideal that underlies the whole of the Convention.”
[Note: this case law contains interesting material about the true aim of Turkish politicians like the Prime Minister Erdogan]
2003 [final 14/06/2004], Case of Gündüz v. Turkey; ([FS], nos. 35071/97, § 51, ECHR 2003-XI;
2004 [final 10/11/2005], Case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey; ([FS], nos. 4774/98, § 94, ECHR 2003-VI;
94. In the Government’s submission, the request for judicial recognition of the right to wear the Islamic headscarf in public institutions was tantamount to claiming a privilege for a religion that would entail in its wake a plurality of legal statuses, a situation that was regarded by the Court as being contrary to the Convention (Refah Partisi and Others, cited above § 119). In that connection, they stressed that the provisions of sharia concerning, among other matters, criminal law, torture as punishment for crime, and the status of women were wholly incompatible with the principle of secularism and the Convention.