Green State
Reclaiming Divine Kingship

Amidst a world ever more intricate and interrelated, the pursuit of a society more sustainable, just, and fair has risen to prominence. Through adhering to the principles of natural law and ecospirituality, we may chart a course towards this objective, invoking ancient wisdom to offer guidance amidst contemporary trials. In this article, we shall delve into the concept of divine kingship, as it appears in the Quran and other holy tomes, considering its implications for contemporary governance, jurisprudence, and community construction. We shall examine the import of the VMOSA framework, the Naturalist Charter, and the jurisprudence of natural law, while hewing closely to the instruction of Surah 103 in the Quran, taking it as a touchstone for the creation of a future that is harmonious for all creatures great and small.

Embracing Natural Law and Ecospirituality in the Face of Modern Jurisprudence


In this day and age, the importance of recognizing the need for a more sustainable and equitable way of living has become increasingly evident. The principles of natural law and ecospirituality provide a path towards such a goal, drawing on ancient wisdom and modern understanding. This article explores the concept of divine kingship, as found in the Quran and other religious texts, and its relevance to modern jurisprudence, governance, and community-building. We examine the implications of the VMOSA framework, the Naturalist Constitution, and natural law jurisprudence, while taking Surah 103 in the Quran as a guiding principle.

The Covenant and Divine Kingship:

The Quran refers to a covenant for divine kingship in 7:172, which establishes a relationship between God and humanity, based on trust and the fulfillment of specific responsibilities. Divine kingship centers on the idea that a true ruler on Earth is one who acts as a trustee, upholding natural law and the principles of ecospirituality. Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Muhammad are identified as embodying this divine kingship.

Parties Involved in the Covenant:

The covenant involves three main parties: God as the Trustor, the Trustee as the Expert Witness/Earth Jurist, and all living beings as beneficiaries. God entrusts the Trustee with the responsibility of upholding natural law and protecting the rights and well-being of all living beings. The Trustee navigates various schools of jurisprudence, including Natural Law, Analytical, Sociological/Historical, and Law & Economic Schools, to ensure the well-being of the beneficiaries.

Objective of the Covenant:

The primary objective of the covenant is to establish a common law system that respects the natural rights and liberties of all living beings. This system promotes justice and fairness, allowing individuals to live in harmony with the natural world and one another.

Theories and Key Issues:

The recognition of rightful rulers, the challenge of navigating different schools of jurisprudence, and the need to promote alternative economic models, such as gift economies, are some of the key issues emerging in the context of divine kingship.

God's Plan for Salvation:

Surah 103 highlights that God's plan for salvation involves building communities that adhere to the principles of natural law and ecospirituality. These communities must maintain their independence from oppressive systems that violate natural rights and perpetuate injustice. Social distancing and civil disobedience may be employed as strategies to resist such systems and promote a return to the Law of Nature.


Reclaiming divine kingship and embracing natural law and ecospirituality are critical steps towards building a more sustainable, equitable, and just society. By understanding the covenant and its implications, we can work towards creating communities that uphold the principles of natural law, promote alternative economic models, and challenge the dominant systems of power that threaten our collective well-being. In doing so, we can pave the way for a brighter and more harmonious future for all living beings.

Naturalism vs. Statism