haidermpr

First you are telling us that western people are not happy with American interventionist ideology and it is happening because of Israeli lobby..you are partially correct. There is no doubt about Israeli involvement in American policy making but majority of American people had supported American interventionist policy in world. 
Why Iran or any other country needs to make good relation with US? Who is America to dictate terms in International affairs? Every sovereign country has rights to defends its interests locally and internationally. None has rights to force others to do as per their whimsical wishes. 
America has destroyed majority of countries in world on the name of installing democracies and fighting terrorism and we don't need to learn it from America. America used to install puppets at the helm  countries after invading them and then start plundering the local resources with the help of their stooges.
Solution is not what you or other American or western people forcing upon world. Solution is to respect other nations irrespective of their size and might. 
Hezbollah and any such organizations have rights to defend their people and country. 
Why America is not attacking apartheid regime of Israel though they are continually involved killing native people of Arab. Because America itself is colonized by white Europeans after killing and plundering the resources of native Americans.
Do you know about Ku Klux Klan ideology and system? 
How you people feel if native people start attacking your country?

My experience with Iran and its people dates from when I was a student in Germany, and I lived in a residence with a bunch of Iranian guys who had fled the revolution with their families. I heard many stories, and met their families. I have not been to Iran, but I have been to many foreign countries, including Egypt. I hope to eventually go to Iran--it is a goal of mine. 
In the last couple of years, I have taken it upon myself to learn as much as I can about the country, and my son learns Farsi (he has a private tutor, and I sometimes sit and learn with him). I have also made a point to learn about Islam. 
While Iran does not have some of the problems that the US has, you cannot say it does not have things like poverty, drug abuse, and prostitution. Maybe not as much, but it is there. Iran could be a great country again, or it could fall backwards into obscurity. It cannot let itself be the puppet of imperial powers, whether that be American or Russian.
Stop thinking that every American lives in a matrix, or has some inherent hostility towards Islam or Persians. 
 

If you are following only mainstream media controlled by Zionist capitalist world order nothing can change your perception for people of resistance. 
common people across the world are supporting the forces of resistance whereas puppets are supporting western warmongers..
What do you understand by white supremacist ideology? Do you think allowing black people of Africa and Asia proves that they are not racist? grow up man, they need these people to work for them..They need literate slaves now instead of illiterate slaves due to changes in social system. They are still ruling the world and controlling the world by their theory of divide and rule.....
Iran and Russia came to Syria with official request of legitimate government of Syria to save Syria and its people. Syria is very important strategically and greater Israel plan cant be successful until Syria is opposing Zionist apartheid regime of Israhell. Assad and his army having basic right to defend his country from terrorists created by CIA and funded by Saudi, Qatar and other gulf monarchies...
http://www.merinews.com/article/the-syrian-war-and-the-western-worlds-propaganda-machinery/15929409.shtml
http://www.merinews.com/article/truth-curtained-and-curtailed-on-syria-amidst-western-medias-misconstrued-propaganda/15929458.shtml
Bear to read these two articles written by me and also go through hunderds of articles written by others on the subject of Syria... Iran and Russia haven't sent terrorists in Syria to kill people and topple Assad government. It was done by America, Britain, France, Saudi, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey etc...

This is a good question, personally it makes me think of a great story of Imam Musa Al-Kazhim (as). Such an amazing imam, I hope Allah honors me to record me as one of his followers. The following is found in kitab irshad by shaykh mufid (ra). 

[Al-Sharīf Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad on the authority of his grandfather (Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥasan), on the authority of another of his colleagues and teachers, (who said:)] A man from the family of ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was in Medina trying to harm Abū al-Ḥasan Mūsā, peace be on him. Whenever he saw (Abū al-Ḥasan) he would curse him and curse ‘Alī, peace be on him. One day some of those who used to attend his gatherings said to him: “Let us kill this sinner.” He forbade them from (doing) that most firmly and rebuked them severely. He asked about the descendant of ‘Umar and was told that he had a farm on the outskirts of Medina. He rode out to him and found him at his farm. As he entered the farm with his donkey, the descendant of ‘Umar cried out: “Do not tread on my sown land.” Yet Abū al-Ḥasan, peace be on him, continued to tread on it with his donkey until he reached him. He dismounted and sat with him. He greeted him with a smile and laughed at him. “How much have you paid to sow your land?” he asked. “One hundred dīnārs,” (the other man) answered. “How much do you hope to acquire from it?” “I do not know the unknown,” was the reply. “I only asked you about what you hope it would bring you,” retorted (Abū al- Ḥasan). “I hope that it will bring me two hundred dīnārs,” he answered. Abū al-Ḥasan took out a purse in which was three hundred dīnārs and said: “This is (the price) of what you have sown in its present condition (i.e. what you have spent to sow it and what you hope to gain from it.) May Allāh provide you with what you hope for from it.” The descendant of ‘Umar kissed his head and asked him to forgive his (former) hasty words about him. Abū al-Ḥasan, peace be on him, smiled at him and went away. In the evening he went to the mosque and found that descendant of ‘Umar sitting there. When the latter saw him, he called out: “Allāh knows best where to put his mission.”
His companions jumped (in surprise) towards him and said to him: “What is the story (behind what you say), for you used to speak quite differently from this.” “You have heard what I have said now,” he replied and began to speak on behalf of Abū al-Ḥasan, peace be on him. They opposed him and he opposed them. When Abū al-Ḥasan returned to his house, he said to those who attended his gatherings and who had asked about killing the descendant of ‘Umar: “Which was better - what you wanted or what I wanted? I put right his attitude to the extent which you have now become acquainted with. I was sufficient for the evil that was in him.” A group of the traditionalists (ahl al-‘ilm) mention that Abū al-Ḥasan, peace be on him, always used to travel with two hundred to three hundred dīnārs to give away. The purses of Mūsā, peace be on him, were proverbial.

Ohh really 
Do you really believe that world doesn't have faith in Putin and Assad? Putin is having much higher credibility as compared to Trump, May, Macron and rest of white supremacist ideologues who had created terrorists in Syria to topple Assad government.
Ukraine was not invaded by Russia.. it looks you believe more on Zionist controlled media.. some times go through alternate media websites to understand the truth.. Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia...
who the hell are you, me or anyone else to think or decide about role of Assad in Syria.. It is pure prerogative of Syrian people who voted him power earlier..
OPCW is an international body and American warmongers are not ready to wait for its investigations on alleged chemical attack...And for your information Syrian UN representative pleading to UN for fair investigations by international body regarding alleged chemical attack in Douma but white zionist slaves are not ready for that...
Get your facts right before discussing on anything important...rather supporting or opposing any side....

Shame on Pakistan that backstabbed Kashmir and its people. It is Pakistan because of which Plebiscite couldn't happen. I can't support Munafiq establishment simply because it is so called muslim country.
 

There is difference in hypocrisy and open mindedness. I don't understand why you people are still not able to see the truth that they are using Kashmir and its people as a tool nothing more than that. If they truly believe in your sufferings they should have handed over the Pakistan occupied Kashmir to UN and would have asked for plebiscite. 
 
Anyone is terrorist and tyrant who kills innocent civilians and even sleeping forces. Are you really shia? What is teachings of our great Imam Ali (as) regarding war and its ethics?
India already promised that in UN and no need to continue asking same question. Pakistan first need to fulfill is promise of withdrawing all its forces and people from occupied land. you can't blame India when the basic requirement of plebiscite was not completed by Pakistan.
Pakistan is fooling people of Kashmir since beginning and people are still not able to see the truth. 
here is not be should instead must have withdrawn long back.....
 

Read this:
 

@Mawdudi Dear brother welcome into fold of friends of Ahlebait (as)
May Allah guide you further to understand the truth. Learning is the key to understand the Truth.

Asaalaalaikum,
Im glad to say that im now a SHIA! Alhamdulillah! 
Why did I take this decision? Because I've been reading and contemplating and reflecting about Islam and my beliefs. One thing I have especially been thinking about is Islamic history. I look at the lives of the sahaba and I realize there are many virtues in their lives, however the sahaba in general are clearly not healthy examples to follow and I believe that the Ahlulbayt is the clearest and PUREST path to the true sunnah of Rasoolullah (saw)! This is because although the sahaba such as Umar ibn al Khattab and Abu Bakr did many good things and made genuine efforts towards Islam, it is clear that they are not the best examples for me to follow. For example, Abu Bakr was the first person to do Takfir as he declared war on those not willing to pay zakat, Its clear that the sahaba have categories: I believe that many sahaba had flaws in their character but were still overall good people as they strived for Islam with everything they had. However there are some sahabas that are just very bad in character. For example Khalid Ibn al Walid was the commander of the muslim army for many years and many sunnies glorify him because of his military accomplishments, but clearly he had no morals. He killed many innocent people and even killed a muslim man and raped his wife. DISGUSTING! I cant follow someone like that! I think that If someone takes Khalid Ibn AL Walid as a role model they will end up joining ISIS, Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Another example of a despicable sahaba is Muawiya which I'm sure I don't need to talk about.
ON THE FLIP SIDE..... The Ahlulbayt are cleary of a higher status,and the division of the ummah from the start is very clear. Now I'm a follower of Ali (as), Hassan (as), Hussain(as), Zain UL abadeen (as) and Zayd ibn Ali (as)!!!! By following these individuals I truly believe that I will be a follower of MUHAMMAD RASOOLULALH (saw). However one may ask the question, why do I need to be shia to love the ahlulbayt?? My answer is that yes, sunnies do also love the ahlulbayt, but the problem of sunnism is that they dont condemn sahabas who committed oppression! I will never be a supporter of ANY tyrant and oppressor!
the following hadith payed a big part in me becoming Shia:
"The Messenger of God sent Khalid b. al-Walid to the people of the Yemen inviting them to Islam, and I was among those who went with him. He persisted in the matter for six months, but they did not respond, so the Messenger of God sent 'Ali b. Abi Talib and ordered him that Khalid and those who were with him should return, but if any of them would like to follow him he should allow them. Al-Bara' said, "I was one who followed 'Ali, and as we reached the borders of the Yemen the people got the news. They gathered around him and 'Ali led us in the morning prayer. When he had finished [the prayer], he lined us up in one row. Then he moved before us, praised and extolled God, then read to them the letter of the Messenger of God. All of Hamdan embraced Islam in one day, and he wrote to the Messenger of God about it. When the Prophet read 'Ali's letter he fell down, prostrating himself to God. Then he sat up and said, 'Peace be upon Hamdan, Peace be upon Hamdan' [After the conversion of Hamdan] )he people of the Yemen followed in succession with their acceptance of Islam" - narrated by Tabari.
alhamdulillah! Its time to take a stand, to take my own path! The iranan author Ali Shariati says: "My father chose my name, my ancestors chose my last name, thats enough. I myself choose my way!". I was born a hanafi sunni but now im a Shia. Furthermore, the Quran says:
"(53:38) No soul shall bear the burden on another" (Wa La tazitru waaziratu wizra ukhra).

Wa alaikum as salam,
Brother you raised very valid question and it proves that you are learning things rather having blind faith in anything. Learning is part and parcel of life and we must continue our journey of getting educated until we reach in grave. 
There are very certain reasons because of which Imam Ali (as) never took part in any war during the first three calpihs and I can summarize as below-
1. First three caliphs were not legitimate one and they had usurped the rights of AhleBait (as) and for further reading on the subject you can read Sermon in Nahjul Balgha especially Khutba e Shiqshiqya and its commentary.
2. Fighting under army of any of these 3 caliphs would have means that Imam Ali (as) accepted them as his leader and caliph. He had been offered role of commander of muslim army several times but he refused to take any positions.
3. Islam believes in spreading message of love and compassion and convert people's heart rather forcing them to convert under the blade of swords..Converting people with swords will create society of hypocrites and not of Momen and Islam needs momin not munafiq. Banu Umayya clan is best example of munafiq who got converted to Islam after conquest of Makka due to threat to their life.
Some people believe that Imam Ali (as) pledged his allegiance to AbuBakr after 6 months. that is completely rubbish, he just withdrawn himself from robe of caliphate and was busy teaching people essence of Islam. He even refused to accept allegiance of muslim community after murder of Usman but accepted after much deliberations and acceptance by the community that they will obey his all commands. Talha and Zubair were first to pledge allegiance to Maula Ali (as) and first to break their Oath. Few people used to write in their historical claims that they were forced to pledge allegiance though Imam Ali (as) never forced allegiance on anyone. Ibn Umar refused to pay his allegiance and Maula Ali (as) didn't force him at the time when Talha and Zubair paid allegiance.
4.Expansionist ideology of different caliphs and muslim rulers is not teaching of Islam and hence Maula Ali (as) refused to take part in any of wars under first 3 caliphs.

Wa alaikum as salam,
Brother you raised very valid question and it proves that you are learning things rather having blind faith in anything. Learning is part and parcel of life and we must continue our journey of getting educated until we reach in grave. 
There are very certain reasons because of which Imam Ali (as) never took part in any war during the first three calpihs and I can summarize as below-
1. First three caliphs were not legitimate one and they had usurped the rights of AhleBait (as) and for further reading on the subject you can read Sermon in Nahjul Balgha especially Khutba e Shiqshiqya and its commentary.
2. Fighting under army of any of these 3 caliphs would have means that Imam Ali (as) accepted them as his leader and caliph. He had been offered role of commander of muslim army several times but he refused to take any positions.
3. Islam believes in spreading message of love and compassion and convert people's heart rather forcing them to convert under the blade of swords..Converting people with swords will create society of hypocrites and not of Momen and Islam needs momin not munafiq. Banu Umayya clan is best example of munafiq who got converted to Islam after conquest of Makka due to threat to their life.
Some people believe that Imam Ali (as) pledged his allegiance to AbuBakr after 6 months. that is completely rubbish, he just withdrawn himself from robe of caliphate and was busy teaching people essence of Islam. He even refused to accept allegiance of muslim community after murder of Usman but accepted after much deliberations and acceptance by the community that they will obey his all commands. Talha and Zubair were first to pledge allegiance to Maula Ali (as) and first to break their Oath. Few people used to write in their historical claims that they were forced to pledge allegiance though Imam Ali (as) never forced allegiance on anyone. Ibn Umar refused to pay his allegiance and Maula Ali (as) didn't force him at the time when Talha and Zubair paid allegiance.
4.Expansionist ideology of different caliphs and muslim rulers is not teaching of Islam and hence Maula Ali (as) refused to take part in any of wars under first 3 caliphs.

Salaam brother,
From a pure Islamic perspective, offensive wars are not permitted. Expansionism is not permitted for the sake of land grabbing. The battles fought during the time of the Prophet were either to defend Muslims or their properties.
Absolutely not. The conquests were the worst thing they did. It was the result of these conquests that Islam became associated with barbarism.
Furthermore, Imam Ali (as) didn't give bayah. He agreed to rescind his claim to the caliphate but that is not the same as giving bayah.
Lastly, Islam preaches "live and let live" not conquer or be conquered.
 
 
 
 

You are quoting one of the sentence of Hazrat Zaid from sources which are not highly reliable if related to first 3 caliphs due to their blind love for them. 
There is enough hadiths and narrations and historical proofs that Fatima (SA) daughter of Prophet (SAWW) was angry with AbuBakr and Umar till her last time.
Another important source is Nahjul Balagha and you must read commentary of Shiqshiqya Khutba to understand the truth.
Yes, people of Kufa betrayed Hazrat Zaid just like they have betrayed his grandfather Imam Husain  (AS) but why you are no mentioning that great Jurist of time and first Imam of Ahle Sunnat Imam AbuHanifa also betrayed him.
Do you have guts to ask Imam Abu Hanifa for his betrayal? He was present there in Kufa at the time of rising of Hazrat Zaid against Banu Umayya corrupt rule.

You are quoting one of the sentence of Hazrat Zaid from sources which are not highly reliable if related to first 3 caliphs due to their blind love for them. 
There is enough hadiths and narrations and historical proofs that Fatima (SA) daughter of Prophet (SAWW) was angry with AbuBakr and Umar till her last time.
Another important source is Nahjul Balagha and you must read commentary of Shiqshiqya Khutba to understand the truth.
Yes, people of Kufa betrayed Hazrat Zaid just like they have betrayed his grandfather Imam Husain  (AS) but why you are no mentioning that great Jurist of time and first Imam of Ahle Sunnat Imam AbuHanifa also betrayed him.
Do you have guts to ask Imam Abu Hanifa for his betrayal? He was present there in Kufa at the time of rising of Hazrat Zaid against Banu Umayya corrupt rule.

Shurtat al-Khamis
    Shurṭat al-Khamīs (Arabic: شرطة الخمیس) was a group of devoted fighters at the time of Imam 'Ali (a) who had dedicated their lives to support that Imam (a).
 
Literal Meaning
Shurtat literally means group, army, condition, and treaty.[1] In usage, it is the first unit of army that take part in the battle and are ready to sacrifice themselves.[2] Army is meant by Khamis [in Arabic literally means five], because the army used to be divided into five groups of forerunners, front, right wing, left wing, and the heart.[3]
In Usage
Shurtat al-Khamis were a group consisting of 6000 friends of Imam 'Ali (a)[4] who had undertaken to fight (to the death if they had to) and Imam Ali (a) had guaranteed them the heaven.[5]
Status
Regarding the status of Shurtat al-Khamis, Imam Ali (a) once said, "Before you, this treaty (Shurtat al-Khamis) was made among a group of Jews, no one of them was martyred unless he was either the prophet of his own tribe, or the prophet of his town, or a prophet by himself; And you are similar to them except that you are not prophets."[6]
Attributes
Shurtat al-Khamis' members possessed some attributes including being constantly ready and equipped and having constant companionship with Imam Ali (a). In the battles, they used to fight in the front line.[7] They were always ready to serve Imam 'Ali (a) and never delayed obeying the Imam's (a) orders. They had promised to be loyal to Imam (a) to the death. They had detached themselves from this world and were knowledgeable and pious men. They belonged to various tribes. Even when there were no battles, they were ready and accompanied Imam (a) and executed important missions such as administrating legal punishments.[8]
Members
Some members of Shurtat al-Khamis are as follows:
Salman al-Farsi Abu Dhar al-Ghifari[9] Al-Miqdad 'Ammar b. Yasir Abu Sasan al-Ansari Abu 'Amr al-Ansari Sahl b. Hunayf 'Uthman b. Hunayf 'Amr b. Hamiq al-Khuza'i Maytham al-Tammar Rushayd al-Hajari Habib b. Muzahir al-Asadi Muhammad b. Abi Bakr Malik al-Ashtar Suwayd b. Ghafla al-Ju'fi Harith b. 'Abd Allah al-Hamdani Qanbar Uways al-Qarani Kumayl b. Ziyad al-Nakha'i Asbagh b. Nubata[10] Wahb b. 'Abd Allah Maslama http://en.wikishia.net/view/Shurtat_al-Khamis

You are quoting one of the sentence of Hazrat Zaid from sources which are not highly reliable if related to first 3 caliphs due to their blind love for them. 
There is enough hadiths and narrations and historical proofs that Fatima (SA) daughter of Prophet (SAWW) was angry with AbuBakr and Umar till her last time.
Another important source is Nahjul Balagha and you must read commentary of Shiqshiqya Khutba to understand the truth.
Yes, people of Kufa betrayed Hazrat Zaid just like they have betrayed his grandfather Imam Husain  (AS) but why you are no mentioning that great Jurist of time and first Imam of Ahle Sunnat Imam AbuHanifa also betrayed him.
Do you have guts to ask Imam Abu Hanifa for his betrayal? He was present there in Kufa at the time of rising of Hazrat Zaid against Banu Umayya corrupt rule.

There is difference in hypocrisy and open mindedness. I don't understand why you people are still not able to see the truth that they are using Kashmir and its people as a tool nothing more than that. If they truly believe in your sufferings they should have handed over the Pakistan occupied Kashmir to UN and would have asked for plebiscite. 
 
Anyone is terrorist and tyrant who kills innocent civilians and even sleeping forces. Are you really shia? What is teachings of our great Imam Ali (as) regarding war and its ethics?
India already promised that in UN and no need to continue asking same question. Pakistan first need to fulfill is promise of withdrawing all its forces and people from occupied land. you can't blame India when the basic requirement of plebiscite was not completed by Pakistan.
Pakistan is fooling people of Kashmir since beginning and people are still not able to see the truth. 
here is not be should instead must have withdrawn long back.....
 

Shame on Pakistan that backstabbed Kashmir and its people. It is Pakistan because of which Plebiscite couldn't happen. I can't support Munafiq establishment simply because it is so called muslim country.
 

Dont fool people here with rhetoric. Tell us simply what Pakistani forces are doing in lands of Kashmir without any agreement for that? Instead they should have left after UN intervention according to agreement of plebiscite. Why India has to leave its part of Kashmir when Kashmir was legally acceded to India?

Because they never asked Pakistani establishment to leave the Kashmir area acquired by it during 1947 invasion by Pakistani militia and secondly supporting militants and their ideology.
Wrong info can't hide the facts. There is no denying that Hindus and Sikh massacred muslim of Jammu in Sep-Oct-1947 but before that Pakistan not only stopped supply of important necessities but its militia attacked Kashmir. I know both things and hence cant support oppression of either side. both were highly disgusting and condemnable.
 
Current separatists and militants clearly want to annex Kashmir to Pakistan as they don't want an independent Kashmir. If Pakistan and militants are so much interested in Independence they should also start war with Pakistani establishment.
 

As we can see in the above tradition in Sahih Muslim, not only Ahlul-Bayt has been put beside the Qur’an, but also it has been mentioned three times by the Prophet (S).
Despite the fact that the author of Sahih Muslim and many other Sunni traditionists have recorded the above tradition in their authentic books, it is regrettable that the majority of Sunnis are unaware of its existence at the best, or deny it at the worst. Their counter argument is that the most reliable tradition in this regard is the one recorded by al-Hakim in his al-Mustadrak, on the authority of Abu Huraira, attributing to the Messenger of Allah saying: "I leave amongst you two things that if you follow or act upon, you will not go astray after me: The Book of God and my Sunnah (traditions)."
On tracing the source of this report of Abu Huraira which states "Qur’an and Sunnah,”we found out that it has NOT been recorded in any of the six authentic Sunni collections of the traditions (Sihah Sittah). Not only that, but also al-Bukhari, al-Nisa’i, and al-Dhahabi and many others rated this report (Qur’an and Sunnah) as weak because of its weak Isnad. It should be noted that although the book of al-Hakim is an important Sunni collection of traditions, yet it is ranked inferior to the six major Sunni books. This is while Sahih Muslim is in the second rank among the six Sunni collections of traditions.
al-Tirmidhi reported that the "Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt”version of the tradition is traced to 30+ companions. Ibn Hajar al-Haythami reported that he knows of 20+ companions witnessed that also. This is while the "Qur’an and Sunnah”version reported by al-Hakim has only one source! Thus we must conclude that the "Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt”version is much more reliable. Moreover al-Hakim has also mentioned the "Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt”version in his book (al-Mustadrak) through several chain of authorities and confirmed that the "Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt”version of the tradition is authentic based on the criteria of al-Bukhari and Muslim.
The Messenger of Allah (S) said: "I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to BOTH of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt. The Merciful has informed me that These two shall not separate from each other till they come to me by the Pool (of Paradise)."
Sunni references:
1. Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with reference to several chains of transmitters.
2. al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic (Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim).
3. Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
4. Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5, pp 182,189,350,366,419
5. Fadha’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p585, Tradition #990
6. al-Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i, pp 21,30
7. al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p230
8. al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 62-63,137
9. Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Chapter al-Iti’sam bi Habl Allah, v1, p44.
10. Tafsir Ibn Kathir (complete version), v4, p113, under commentary of verse 42:23 of Qur’an (four traditions)
11. al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, by Ibn Sa’d, v2, p194, Pub. by Dar Isadder, Lebanon.
12. al-Jami’ al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti, v1, p353, and also in v2
13. Majma’ al-Zawa’id, al-Haythami, v9, p163
14. al-Fateh al-Kabir, al-Binhani, v1, p451
15. Usdul Ghabah fi Ma’rifat al-Sahaba, Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12
16. Jami’ al-Usul, Ibn al-Athir, v1, p187
17. History of Ibn Asakir, v5, p436
18. al-Taj al-Jami’ Lil Usul, v3, p308
19. al-Durr al-Manthoor, al-Hafidh al-Suyuti, v2, p60
20. Yanabi al-Mawaddah, al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 38,183
21. Abaqat al-Anwar, v1, p16

https://ahlulbayt.tv/ondemand/episode/s358e1cj/Did_The_Prophet_Say_He_Will_Have_12_Successors/
Salam if you want more youtube videos for shia Islam ,I recommend you to watch Ahlulbayt tv  Islamic pulse shiainthecity Imamrezashrine channels on youtube 
also you can find many sources on www.al-islam.org   www.sibtayn.com  www.islampfr.com   globe.aqr.ir  www.al-shia.org   www.valiasr-aj.com

There is different reason because of which Kashmir is not a hot topic. None is denying that injustices meted out but Kashmiri are equally responsible for mayhem. If you read history of Kashmir properly you will find that Pakistani militia attacked Kashmir with the intent of annexing it, ruler of Kashmir who was contemplating to remain independent asked Indian help to deter Pakistani militia and Indian government accepted his plea to support Kashmir state with condition of annexing it with India which he accepted. Though Prime Minister of India Pt. Nehru promised plebiscite but there were certain conditions like removal of all pakistani forces from Kashmir area which didn't happen till now. 
why Kashmiri now want separate state on the basis of religion namely muslim? We Indian muslim already faced too much and paid heavy price because of partition which happened due to stupidity of few self centered muslim leaders. first these kashmiri people need to change the subject of Independence from religious point of view and secondly ask their Pakistani friends to leave whole Kashmir including Aksai Chin area which is currently held by China.
 

Wa alaikum as salam,
NO, Abdullah ibn Jafar never divorced Zainab (as). There is no such historical fact in authentic sources.