The Judeo-Christian God is a God who made a covenant with His people, first a relationship in pre-history and the Old Testament, including His people Israel, and second a new covenant through His son. In the Calmeyer context, the common thread is obedience to Law, inspired not just by legislative legalism, but my moral law and standards that make law “justice.”

"The Jewish (and later Christian) alternative to pagan social order is  the Covenant: God in his love assigns rights to every human being, and  establishes laws for the protection of the weak and helpless. Covenant  is a concept alien to Islam, for by definition a God of covenants places a limit on his own power and enters into a partnership with a human  society. The all-transcendent Allah does not stoop to make covenants  with mere humans; not so YHWH of the Hebrews. No longer can the Roman  paterfamilias command the death of his own children in the little empire of his home; the covenant protects every member of society directly.  Because the covenant is expressed through laws, and laws require  reasoning, the God of covenants must be a God of reason."                 Spengler

Is Divine Law something that leads inexorably to a Theocracy? Is it the ultimate principle, like the 10 Commandments ? Is it Natural Law that states that our rights as human beings are given to us by a Creator, and not by the State ?

The American Declaration of Independence is an example of Natural Law deriving from a Creator. The concept of natural law there is stated as follows: "We are all  endowed by Our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them,  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These rights precede the US Constitution and are not something the State can grant in the first place, and therefore cannot take away, though the State can and does regulate society’s behavior. Natural law is not legislated law, and thus has the force of true law only to the extent that the civilization/society/culture accepts its validity and respects and enforces it.

What is Natural Law and what are inherent or “unenumerated rights” ? We are at an extremely critical juncture in America’s preservation of natural rights, now being questioned as never before as liberal governments seek to strengthen the ability of the State to regulate and control vast swaths of previously private behavior and business transactions.

... Elena Kagen, candidate for Supreme Court Justice, stated that she didn’t believe in  rights that are inherent to us, only in rights as granted by the Constitution and by the Law itself.

Yet America’s individual rights are quite clearly not at all subordinated to the State, most of them are inherent, as seen in:

1. The Declaration of Independence
2. The Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which explicitly recognize unenumerated rights.

These two founding documents of the American system are loosely based on the Magna Carta, the charter of France’s Charlemagne. But this is the keystone of what makes the United States unique: Americans are not granted rights by government or by the Constitution. Peoples’ rights originate with our very humanity. The People are not subjects. The People are the original author who grants power to government institutions. Most importantly, that which is not delegated is retained by the People.

 Because of this,  the majority cannot abrogate basic rights of the individual for the general benefit. The individual has freedom of conscience, freedom of  expression, freedom of idea, and freedom of action that does not injure another.

 It is not this way in European democracies, such as  France. They believe that the individual surrenders his inherent rights for superior civil rights and security. Ergo, the individual can be ruled by the majority and the general benefit.

Excerpts from The Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to  dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.  That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,  that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We, Therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America in  General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.
And for the support of this  Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine  Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes,  and our sacred Honor.

After each of the  delegates had signed the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams  declared:

We have  this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let his kingdom come

This is quite different from Islam, or from any Deist system (like the Nazis) who used the name of God for various purposes, but had no legal covenant relationship with God that super-ceded and super-encompassed the written law. Scripture is the written law, but the difference between being “merely legalistic” versus being “morally judicious” is a matter of having more than a blind understanding of written words.

Again, without Natural Law there is no mediator, no paraclete, no advocate with God.        again, from Engler:

Mainstream Islam rejected Greek-derived philosophy at the turn of the 12th century, when Abu Hamid al-Ghazali established a theology of divine caprice. In the normative Muslim view of things, Allah  personally and immediately directs the motion of every molecule by his  ineffable and incomprehensible will, according to the al-Ghazali synthesis,  directly and without the mediation of natural law. Al-Ghazali abolished  intermediate causes, that is, laws of nature, leaving great and small events to  the caprice of the absolute tyrant of the universe.

In place of Hellenistic reasoning, Islam turned to a literal reading of the Koran. Robert Reilly recounts Islam's abandonment of Hellenistic reason, and  blames it for the subsequent decline of Muslim civilization and the rise of  radical Islam.

 Reilly argues that Western civilization, is founded on reason, whereas  normative Islam embraces irrationality. Citing Pope Benedict XVI's 2006 address at Regensburg, he notes that the 11th-century Muslim theologian Ahmad Ibn Said  Ibn Hazm taught that Allah was not bound even by his own word, and should Allah  will it, we should have to become idolaters.

... What is it that unites Catholic Thomists and evangelical fideists (as well as observant Jews), but divides all of them from Muslims? It is the Biblical  belief that God loves his creatures. Heavenly bodies are not deities, but  rather lamps and clocks for human benefit. That is a dogmatic assertion on the  strength of Biblical revelation, not a logical conclusion. A loving God, in the  Biblical view, places man in a world that he can comprehend, which is to say  that God establishes order in the universe out of love for humankind. We live  in the best of all possible worlds (that is, a comprehensible one), Leibniz  argued, because a good God would not maroon us in the second-best version. This  implies that if God were not good, the world might not be as hospitable to  humans as it is. This is unimaginable to Christians or Jews, but not to  Muslims, who think that Allah can make any sort of world he wants, or indeed a  different world from one day to the next.