Posted by: TheMajlis
INDEPENDENCE OF THE judiciary from the executive is largely an empty slogan of the votaries of western democracy. In the annals of history there is no example to compare with the episode which appears on this page.
Islam has practically demonstrated the meaning of equality in front of the law. No monarch, governor, ruler, president, prime minister, cabinet minister, etc. could be ushered to court to stand as an ordinary citizen in front of the judge in the manner in which the Rulers of the Islamic Empire had demonstrated. Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was not an isolated case. Islamic history bears ample testimony to the fact that even not so pious Muslim monarchs answered the summons of the Qaadhi without hesitation and stood on the same level as the plaintiff.
Those who pipe the tune of western democracy in which the independence of the judiciary is supposed to be a fundamental principle cannever hope to present the glittering examples of justice by an independent judiciary flaunted by Islamic autocracy known as Khilaafat.
Despite the slogan, it is a momentous struggle for an ordinary citizen to succeed in hauling a high government official of the democratic system to court. Public outcries and media pressure may succeed in activating the principle of the independence of the judiciary and that all men are equal in front of the law. But in a democracy, this is not normal nor in any other system of government. It is only Islamic Autocracy which can be proud of the distinction of the true independence of the judiciary -- a system in which true justice and fair play reign.
The Islamic autocratic system is divine. In a true Islamic system of government, fear for Allah Ta’ala permeates the administration. The Ruler is not the maker of laws. He merely dispenses the divine laws of Allah Ta’ala. He is not an unjust despot like the presidents of democracies. Although it is claimed that the president is ‘democratically’ elected, he is far from being a ‘democrat’. A glance at the presidents of the ‘democratic’ countries will convince the keen observer that all presidents of republics and democracies are cruel, unjust despots who are at the helm for personal glory and monetary gain.
Notwithstanding the flowery language which adorns constitutions and preambles, the irrefutable fact is that while the law will prosecute an ordinary citizen for a crime, cast him into a squalid cell, and haul him to court, similar treatment cannot be meted out to Mr. President of a ‘democratic republic’ irrespective of the notoriety of the crime which the despot may commit. The hollowness of the slogans of democracy is manifest in practical every day life. The high sounding phrases of human rights, equality, justice and the like are designed for public consumption at forums of hypocritical display.