Re: original shia part 2
I'd like to stick to the Quran, because you and I both know that anyone could have fabricated some of those hadith that are supposedly "authentic". If Sunni scholar says his hadith is fully authentic, and Shia scholar says his is fully authentic and both are opposites of each other, then you know one is lying, right?
Since we can't figure out which one is lying, since there are no 100% historical accurate records, we should stick with the Quran for this discussion.
It doesn't mean that I wont take away a nice message from a hadith. Hadith for me are kind of like those thoughtful messages of the day people get in their email at work. Nice, but not something to treat like Allah's word.
You repeatedly characterise the shia view of rule as hereditary, as I said, it isnt hereditary in our eyes, just as the Abrahimic lineage of Prophets wasnt hereditary as you would define it. That said, there is precedent in Islam of one tribe or one family (Hazrat Ibrahim's) having a higher proportion of Prophets, that does not mean that men and women and tribes were unequal in the eyes of Allah before He changed His mind after the revelation of Islam.
A hereditary-basis for power means that the next ruler in line can ONLY be the next son in-line or next closest male blood relative. That's a monarchy-type institution, essentially.
This is nothing like the Abrahamic lineage of Prophets. First of all, many prophets were not political leaders. Secondly, political leaders were not mandated to come from any of these prophets - according to the Quran. Third, there were other Prophets outside of this lineage. The Quran says that a messenger was sent to each people. So even Chinese civilization did get prophets in one form or the other. Therefore, the Abrahamic lineage of Prophets is merely a trend, not necessarily a monarchy of any sort. If every Prophet on the face of this planet came from the Abrahmic lineage, then it woudl be a different story, but that would be illogical. Prophets came before Abraham as well.