We do believe that Islam (Quranism) is a religion that includes a ruling system (which is direct democracy or Shura), and this is part of our basic religious beliefs (hoping to be deemed acceptable to God) that provokes the ire of two ideologically conflicting groups that seek to reach power in any given Arab country: secular people (who aim to remove religion altogether from aspects of rule) and extremist Wahabi/Salafist people (who aim for a theocracy). Thus, we as a pioneer of the Quranist school of thought contradict the views of secular thinkers who desire to totally separate the notion of the State (or rather the ruling system in it) and the religion of Islam.

  Those secular thinkers ignore the fact that real Islam (i.e., the Quran) was the basis of the Yathreb city-state led by Muhammad in the Middle Ages and that this city-state of Islam that applied the Quranic Shura principle (i.e., direct democracy) preceded all modern civil democracies of the West of our era; this Yathreb city-state was a democratic oasis amidst the typical obscurantism and tyranny dominant in the Middle Ages. This culture of tyranny dominated once more all over Arabia once Muhammad died, and the Arab Empire that was formed as a result of the crime of the Arab conquest (deemed a crime and a sin as far as Quranic teachings are concerned) has been more tyrannical than the empires of the Byzantine emperors and Persian rulers. Yet, the real features of a Quran-based rule of the Yathreb city-state model are preserved in the Quran till the end of days, and these features are the reason for our religious belief in a civil State rule including human rights and direct democracy advocated in the Quran, as we explain in this book.

  We thus contradict the Salafist Wahabi and Shiite trends in their views of theocracy. We, as a Quranist, never believe in notion of theocracy at all. This does not oppose our view that religion is not to be separate from the State; but what State and what religion? This is the pivotal question. Salafists (i.e., worshippers of the past religious and theocratic traditions) of both types (Sunnite Wahabis + Shiites) believe staunchly that 'Islam' contains advocating of theocratic rule of clergymen, with the ruler/imam as supreme powerful monarch, with 'divine' authority stemming from clergymen, who 'owns' the lands of a given country and all people on it as his 'subjects' or rather cattle, and such absolute ruler would control everything and everyone, aided by his entourage and retinue of ecclesiastics and theologians to lend sham religious credibility to his decrees and tyrannical rule, within their earthly religions of course. This has been the dominant religiosity patterns and world-view typical of the Middle Ages from the Umayyad Era till the pre-modern Ottoman Era. Of course, the religious trends in the Arab world seek to re-establish such caliphate or theocracy at any cost in our modern age, manipulating the name of Islam. Their notions of obscurantist theocratic rule have nothing to do whatsoever with Islam and contradict the Quran as applied by Muhammad in the Yathreb city-state, as we infer from the only true source of the story of Muhammad: the Quranic verses. This is a topic that deserves another lengthier book and goes beyond the scope of this book, but we attempt a brief comparison between how Muhammad ruled the Yathreb city-state and how theocracies of tyrannical caliphs (from the Umayyads to the Ottomans) were ruled, and this will be followed by showing how the judicial authority should be in a really Quran-based country or state and how the judicial authority has been within theocracies, in order to explain how the notion of the Quran-based State or rule is directly linked to the civil society and its the judicial  system.                 

  Let us compare between the Quran-based rule (that we believe in as a Quranist thinker, as per the model of the Yathreb city-state led by Muhammad) and the theocratic rule (that we reject as a Quranist thinker as well) in many comparative aspects that prove how both types of rule contradict each other.       

  (A) Theocratic rule: the State aims to forcibly 'guide' to Paradise by compulsion in religion and coerce them to follow decrees of theocrats by applying the death penalty for apostasy and by changing and removing 'vice' and enjoining 'good' by force of religious police.

 Comment: the above is quite impossible; it is beyond the capacity of any person/ruler or any state to spiritually guide anyone. In the Quran, we read that one's faith and guidance are a personal responsibility and an individual choice: "Whoever is guided-is guided for his own good. And whoever goes astray-goes astray to his detriment. No burdened soul carries the burdens of another..." (17:15); "Their guidance is not your responsibility..." (2:272); "You cannot guide whom you love..." (28:56); "There shall be no compulsion in religion..." (2:256); "...Will you compel people to become believers?" (10:99).

 (B) Quran-based rule: the aim is to apply justice as the supreme value among people: "We sent Our messengers with the clear proofs, and We sent down with them the Book and the Balance, that humanity may uphold justice..." (57:25); "...say, "I believe in whatever Book God has sent down, and I was commanded to judge between you equitably..." (42:15); "We have revealed to you the Scripture, with the truth, so that you judge between people in accordance with what God has shown you..." (4:105). We deduce from these verses that application of justice among people is the aim of all celestial messages from God conveyed by His prophets and messengers. Accordingly, within the Yathreb city-state, Muhammad as its civil leader undertook the mission to apply justice within his human capacity in applying and adhering to Quranic teachings. This was apart from his ministry or religious mission as a prophet of God to convey the Quranic message to people using wisdom and gentle advice.

 (C) Comparative aspect of contradiction: the mission undertaken by the State.

 (A) Theocratic rule: a caliph or a theocrat would claim deriving divine authority from God as His representative or successor on earth (literally, the Arabic word 'caliph' means a successor or a deputy), in the manner typical of the so-called divine right of kings known in Europe in the Dark Ages. This is why history tells us that the Umayyad caliph Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan announced, after his ascendency to the caliphate throne, that anyone who would admonish him to adhere to piety in the fear of God would be put to death. Likewise, the Abbasid caliph Abou Jaffer Al-Mansour once enthroned announced that he was the successor and representative of God on earth who had the right to control all people in the caliphate, and he meant to assert his being the 'infallible' shepherd of his subjects or sheep, held responsible only before God, and this meant that no mortal was to question his decrees. The false hadith of the right of rulers to massacre even up to the one-third of the population or subjects to reform the other two-thirds has sprung and spread ever since. Hence, such illogical notions made most caliphs nearer to the character of Moses' Pharaoh in the Quran, who is the symbol of tyranny and self-deification.

 (B) Quran-based rule: we deduce from the Quranic text that the nations/societies/people are the source of all authorities; God has said the following to Muhammad as a ruler of the Yathreb city-state: "It is by of grace from God that you were gentle with them. Had you been harsh, hardhearted, they would have dispersed from around you. So pardon them, and ask forgiveness for them, and consult them in the conduct of affairs..." (3:159). This means that because of the grace of God, Muhammad was gentle with people around him, because if he was otherwise, he would have lost authority and power stemmed from people to allow him to rule and lead the Yathreb city-state. This indicate clearly that people were the source of power and authority of Muhammad, and this allowed him to form this city-state and to avoid the persecution he suffered in Mecca. Hence, God has commanded Muhammad in 3:159 to pardon the people (i.e., source of real authority) if they harmed him in anyway, to ask God's forgiveness to them, and to consult them in the conduct of affairs because they were the concerned ones of all affairs of rule and were the source of real power.      

 (C) Comparative aspect of contradiction: the source of authority.

 (A) Theocratic rule: its citizens were subdivided into classes and strata; on top of all was the caliph and his household and then dynasty and larger family, followed by leaders and power centers, high-rank officials and employees, and the rest of the masses who share the same faith as the caliph. The second-class citizens were those ''People of the Book'' (i.e., Jews + Christians) and those who had other religions, and at the lowest level were those who were enemies of the caliphate as they oppose the caliph in religious or theological doctrine and political stance, and the theocrat would deal with them with Hisbah (inquisition) that resulted in their persecution or being put to death within the Sunnite penalty of 'apostates' or 'heretics'.

 (B) Quran-based rule: Muslim citizens are literally all peaceful non-violent persons and believers are those who adhere to behavior of peace, safety, and security, regardless of their faiths (or lack of any), because God is the Only and One Judge on the Day of Resurrection as far as one's belief and faith are concerned. Religion is God's concern to judge, whereas the homeland is for all citizens living in it. such was the case within the short-lived Yathreb city-state.

 (C) Comparative aspect of contradiction: in citizenship rights.

 (A) Theocratic rule: a caliph was regarded as the sole owner of the lands and all those living on it as his private property, and he owned and controlled fully the Treasury of the caliphate, to give and receive money and to put to death or to spare anyone's life. To exemplify this, the Abbasid caliph Abou Jaffer Al-Mansour had announced once he was enthroned that as a representative of God and His successor/caliph, he was entitled to control the Treasury to give and receive. Another Abbasid caliph, Harun Al-Rasheed, had purportedly said that he addressed a huge cloud above him laden with rainwater, saying that wherever it would move within his empire and drop its rain, taxes of such harvested crops watered by its rain will reach his Treasury anyway.

 (B) Quran-based rule: each citizen has absolute right in two aspects: 1) justice, and 2) absolute freedom of expression, thought, and religion. Each citizen has relative right in three aspects: 1) wealth, 2) political participation in rule, and 3) safety and security. Of course, those three aspects are absolute rights to a given society, as it owns wealth and must be defended by all citizens and at the same time, society is the source of real authority, but each citizen gets shares of such three aspects as per qualification, efforts, and competence within the equal opportunity principle maintained for everyone.

 (C) Comparative aspect of contradiction: rights of individuals and rights of society.

 (A) Theocratic rule: the main faulty principle applied was to impose the religious creed or doctrine by force on everyone within the caliphate, as per the fabricated Sunnite hadith urging to fight all human beings till they testify to the dual Sunnite testimony of God and Muhammad as his 'Holy' Prophet. This is why after caliphs would invade and conquer any given country or city, they would impose tributes on its indigenous people whether they convert or not, as we read in history of the Umayyads, the Abbasids, and the Ottomans. The general basic look regarding states that had other religions or doctrines, and unconquered yet by caliphs, was that they were the camp of war and disbelief, even within times of peace, as peaceful times were regarded merely as truces until the Muhammadans would grow stronger in terms of military preparations and attempt to invade nations unconquered yet.    

 (B) Quran-based rule: the general, basic look and the main principle applied is to adhere to peace and to never commit any sort of aggression. Wars and fighting are allowed only and exclusively in cases of self-defense and defending one's homeland when being attacked first. This is inferred from the Quran of course: "And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors." (2:190); "...Whoever commits aggression against you, retaliate against him in the same measure as he has committed against you. And be conscious of God, and know that God is with the righteous." (2:194). When the Quran-based rule defeats the aggressive country within this self-defense war, the Muslims have the right to impose military fine on the aggressive defeated party as a form of compensation for losses: "Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, nor abide by the religion of Truth-from among those who received the Scripture-until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly." (9:29).           

 (C) Comparative aspect of contradiction: relations with neighboring countries.

 (A) Theocratic rule: during the era of the Abbasid caliphate, most quasi-religious, theological, and fiqh jurisprudence traditions were written down for the very first time to act as references for issuing religious legislations and fatwas (edicts) for caliphs. Of course, there has been a huge gap, or rather abyss, between such man-made writings/legislations and the Quranic legislation. Corrupt, subservient, obsequious clergymen issued and invented legislations and authored hadiths (that had nothing to do with the Quran: the only real Islam) in order to cater for all tastes and whims of caliphs, and likewise, they annulled and/or suspended the application of the Quranic legislations and sharia laws under the pretext or claim that the so-called hadiths replace and supplant Quranic verses, within the concept or notion of Naskh, but we have proven in earlier writings of ours that the term Naskh means assertion and writings and not deletion or replacement.        

 (B) Quran-based rule: the Quran fits all eras and locations, and ijtihad (innovative, creative thinking) is surely required as to who to understand and apply the Quranic sharia legislations included within the Quranic text, as per its unique Quranic terminology. There is absolutely nothing in Islam called 'hadiths' (i.e., narratives and sayings ascribed falsely to Muhammad), 'Sirah' (i.e., biographies of Muhammad authored 200 years after his death and contain falsehoods) or 'fiqh' (jurisprudence legislations authored by clergymen and theologians of every era).   

 (C) Comparative aspect of contradiction: the intellectual and legislative references.

 (A) Theocratic rule: the caliphate rule system reflected faithfully and truly the Middle-Ages mentality of tyranny, fanaticism, extremism, backwardness, and obscurantism, whether in Europe or in the East. Of course, the Europeans passed through the renaissance period and left the Dark Ages after managing to remove all forms of theocratic rule and control of clergymen and ecclesiastics, thus establishing the laïc/secular rule in modern times by the separation of religion from the State. The Ottoman caliphate ended in 1924, and Turkey imitated the secular model (or laïcité) of Europe after shedding the caliphate rule that has been deemed 'Islamic' thought it had nothing to do with Islam at all. Turkey has passed through secular extremism in all aspects that led to the emergence, as a reaction, of quasi-religious Salafist trends, groups, and movements, especially the MB terrorist organization that has branches worldwide. Such Salafist trends, groups, and movements relentlessly seek to re-establish theocratic rule that would imitate the Ottoman, Abbasid, and Umayyad caliphates.          

 (B) Quran-based rule: Prophet Muhammad had established his Yathreb city-state, whose features were partially preserved and maintained by the three caliphs Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman, and with the assassination of the latter, all features were lost as Arab civil war went on during the caliphate of Ali until the tyrannical absolutist caliphates emerged, such as the Umayyad, Fatimid, and Ottoman theocracies.  

 (C) Comparative aspect of contradiction: historical circumstances and conditions of the establishment and collapse of a given State.

 (A) Theocratic rule: security apparatuses might quell and restrict religious extremists, but the culture of religious extremism and fanaticism would still be dominant as they would be sponsored and propagated by other apparatuses and governmental bodies that at the same time stifle, restrict, persecute, and abort any enlightened religious reformist thought of Muslim thinkers. Maintaining this status quo leads eventually to the fact that extremism would win eventually, though theocracy does not fit our present era or the future era. This means that if a theocracy is established now, it would make a given society moves backwards and sink into obscurantism and ignorance to fit into the theocratic State model!   

 (B) Quran-based rule: the Yathreb city-state remains to be the best model in the modern era of human rights, adherence to peace, and all sorts freedoms, but propagating this model entails patience, suffering, ijtihad, comprehensive religious reform, reform on all the other levels, and raising real awareness of Quranic facts of Islam; otherwise, extremists and fanatics would manage to forcibly establish their backward theocracy. 

 (C) Comparative aspect of contradiction: probabilities of success and failure in our modern era.

  After tackling above the contradiction between the Quran-based rule within civil democracy and the theocratic rule applied in the Middle-Ages by the Europeans and the Muhammadans, we focus on the judicial authority and system of the Quran-based rule; what if any group within this rule would refuse to submit to the judicial authority and system? Such a group is surely part of the whole society, and thus it has the right of political participation and of having a judicial body to represent it, as long as this group lives in peace and adopt non-violence, never committing acts of aggression or raise arms against society. This was the case of hypocrites within the Yathreb city-state in the 7^th century; the Quranic sharia legislations allowed them the freedom of expression within their opposition (by deeds and words). This reached the extent of their harming Muhammad himself and mocking and ridiculing Islam/the Quran as well as harming and conspiring against the early believers. We know all about this from the Quranic verses themselves that mention their deeds and sins; God has commanded Muhammad and the early believers with him to avoid the hypocrites and to withdraw and stay away from them  (never to harm them, because they were peaceful), as their punishment in the Hereafter after the Day of Resurrection is enough for them. Some hypocrites at the time hated the Yathreb city-state in which they lived and conspired against it while allying themselves to its enemies from outside it and deceived and spied on the early believers for the sake of the aggressive enemies, those had to be fought in self-defense endeavors only in case they commit aggressions against peaceful believers; see 4:88-91. Let us return to the earlier case we desire to tackle; i.e., the hypocrites who live within the Yathreb city-state and enjoy full freedom of opposing it by deeds and words. The query raised now is the following: did their freedom of opposition include their refusal to submit to the judicial authority and system of the Yathreb city-state? Did this State had the right to impose its judicial authority and system on them or not?

  It is known that the most democratic and liberal regimes of today would absolutely refuse to grant citizens the right to resort to other laws and judicial systems away from the established ones. In contrast, the Quran has granted hypocrites who were citizens within the Yathreb city-state the right to resort to another judicial body/authority that was regarded as opposing this Yathreb-city state. The Quranic verses contain objection and condemnation of deeds and words of hypocrites and mention these deeds and words as proof of their lack of faith and belief; yet, the Quranic verses have commanded Muhammad never to harm them at all, and this is the highest level of freedom and human rights within this Quran-based rule. Let us give below some brief example to explain this point further. 

1- Some Israelite tribes used to live around the Yathreb city-state near the early believers there, and they were not part of the Yathreb city-state; some Israelites asked Muhammad to be their judge, and they had bad intentions and ulterior motives regarding this request. Typically, Muhammad waited for the divine revelation to know if he was to agree to their request or not: "Listeners to falsehoods, eaters of illicit earnings. If they come to you, judge between them, or turn away from them. If you turn away from them, they will not harm you in the least. But if you judge, judge between them equitably. God loves the equitable. But why do they come to you for judgment, when they have the Torah, in which is God's Law? Yet they turn away after that. These are not believers. We have revealed the Torah, wherein is guidance and light. The submissive prophets ruled the Jews according to it, so did the rabbis and the scholars, as they were required to protect God's Book, and were witnesses to it..." (5:42-44). This means that Muhammad has been told by God in the Quran that he was free to choose either to judge over their affairs fairly and justly or to keep away and withdraw from them. We sense from the previous Quranic verses the astonishment because of the Israelites having the real Torah and rejecting to use it as the criterion for judgment in their own affairs, used by previous prophets and rabbis. Likewise, the other group among the People of the Book has been commanded in the Quran to use the true Gospel to as the criterion for judgment in their own affairs: "In their footsteps, We sent Jesus son of Mary, fulfilling the Torah that preceded him; and We gave him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah that preceded him, and guidance and counsel for the righteous. So let the people of the Gospel rule according to what God revealed in it. Those who do not rule according to what God revealed are the sinners." (5:46:47).    

2- Some hypocrites living within the Yathreb city-state were from the People of the Book who refused to submit to its judicial authority which was based on the Quranic sharia, and God has rebuked them in the Quran without any orders addressed to Muhammad and the early believers to take any measures against them, as we infer from the following verse: "Have you not considered those who were given a share of the Scripture, as they were called to the Scripture of God to arbitrate between them; then some of them turned back, and declined?" (3:23).    

3- Some hypocrites living within the Yathreb city-state chose to reject the Quran and resorted to Satanist falsehoods as criteria for judgment instead. When advice and rebuke were addressed to them, they felt more animosity and repugnance toward the idea of resorting to Muhammad to judge over them, though they did just that in times of hardships and fear while apologizing for him, as we deduce from these verses: "Have you not observed those who claim that they believe in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed before you, yet they seek Satanic sources for legislation, in spite of being commanded to reject them? Satan means to mislead them far away. And when it is said to them, "Come to what God has revealed, and to the messenger," you see the hypocrites shunning you completely. How about when a disaster strikes them because what their hands have put forward, and then they come to you swearing by God: "We only intended goodwill and reconciliation"?" (4:60-62). God the Omniscient knew what lied in their hearts and He is the Only One to judge them in the Hereafter on the Last Day, and He has commanded Muhammad to avoid them and to stay away from them after advising them: "They are those whom God knows what is in their hearts. So ignore them, and admonish them, and say to them concerning themselves penetrating words." (4:63). God has advised and preached them to repent and accept the true faith: "We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by God's leave. Had they, when they wronged themselves, come to you, and prayed for God's forgiveness, and the messenger had prayed for their forgiveness, they would have found God Relenting and Merciful. But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they call you to arbitrate in their disputes, and then find within themselves no resentment regarding your decisions, and submit themselves completely." (4:64-65).        

4- Some hypocrites living within the Yathreb city-state refused to make Muhammad as their judge except when they were quite sure they were in the right and Muhammad thus will be fair to them and restore justice to them, while those among them who were in the wrong would refuse stubbornly to make Muhammad as their judge, as we infer from this verse: "And they say, "We have believed in God and the messenger, and we obey," but some of them turn away afterwards. These are not believers. And when they are called to God and His messenger, in order to judge between them, some of them refuse. But if justice is on their side, they accept it willingly." (24:47-49). Again, in such situation, we see no commands for their punishment or any accusations of sedition or rebelling against the Yathreb city-state; rather, we read advice mixed with reproach addressed to them: "Is there sickness in their hearts? Or are they suspicious? Or do they fear that God may do them injustice? Or His messenger? In fact, they themselves are the unjust. The response of the believers, when they are called to God and His messenger in order to judge between them, is to say, "We hear and we obey." These are the successful." (24:50-51).