Allah�s soverignty...

I have read a lot and heard a lot about the concept of Allah being the only soverign. This is radical thinking really compared to the other faiths, as they don't state that Allah is the soverign over man. I understand the rationale behind Allah being soverign, basically that man can only be equal under the tutelege of Allah, no man can rule over another man. But there is a fundamental problem within Islam as I see it, and its not with the Qu'ran or Muhammed but Shari'a. First in order to understand this problem we have to get a grasp on what soverignty means, soverignty is basically the authority over a plot of land to which the people of that land has alotted the powers of the state to rule, maintain public order, and protect the population. Thus a fundamental contradiction occurs, Shari'a it usurps Allah as soverign. Muslims should know that Shari'a is not from divine revelation, meaning that it was an Islamic innovation created after the Prophethood. Since Allah does not actually pass his soverign controls of justice to man, how can man pretend to have this power? As I wrote in this thread:

Now if you had true faith, and the society in which you lived in had true strong faith, the only law that need be is the law of Allah. You and many Muslims mention that only Allah is soverign, granted then that means by definition that only he can distribute reward and consequence meaning no one man can do the same. If you honestly believe in Allah then you have nothing to fear from rape, murder, or robbing because he would protect you from these injustices, right isn't that the idea of your faith? Unlike other religions Islam is unique in this Allah is soverign concept, if you have a problem with radical freedom, then maybe you may have a problem with Allah's soverignty.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1978& ; ;PN=1&TPN=2

Indeed, the only way one can live a truly moral life if is one lives in a society with radical freedom, which means God's soverignty in Islamic terms. Radically free conjures up many images of people in a "state of nature" as Thomas Hobbes coined it, but to believe that is to truly have a lack of faith not only in your fellow man but in Allah. Faith, not law binds the society together, and faith not punishment would guide people's lives. To be a moral person means this as I wrote in my Shari'a contradiction essay:

Religion is not a legalism, its role is to weed out good people who believe in God and his word from those who do not. The point of heaven and hell is to reward ppl who out of faith avoided good and did evil, and punish those who out of selfishness or other motives did evil. Shari'a creates an artifical faith, it is a faith of fear and involuntary action, Shari'a is so fundamentally mistaken that its enforcement depends on coercion a uniquely human charateristic, does this not preclude the idea of God's law which within the context of the free will cannot be coerced?...To be a moral character one must act not from inclination or from coercion, he must act from the knowledge that what he is doing is innately good and must be done regardless of his condition. Shari'a denies that as it commands that one must act good or suffer a consequence.

This is the only way man can be morally good, to do good and avoid bad if man knows that it is wrong to do, not because he fears retribution for his actions.

Opinions?