Kadu shareef (Pumpkin) Worths more than a Human Life:

Nusrat Javed Fired From Aaj Tv on MQM's Pressure

nusrat's programme stopped being critical at "Bhai"

Just in capital talk Muhammad Malick reported that he received call from Nusrat Javed and he resigned due to MQM as his program was shut down on pressure from MQM. He has resigned saying mqm forced his channel to take his programme off air. 

Nusrat javed said He was started his programe with being critical on Quaid e tehreek why to Give him 5 hrs coverage. He said "Koi bhi Kuch nahi kr skta Karachi main Jo Allah betha hai wohi kre ga" he was being angry and Shouting at Haider Abbas Mqm's leader. He challenged to Mqm Leadership that he is ready to do his Show infront of "90" .

Hamid Mir and Muhammad Malick Ready to raise up this issue and warn Mqm to be in limits

A fanatic Approach : Haroon Rasheed

Islamic radicalization' hearing stirs hornets' nest

Congress holds hundreds of hearings each year — and most generate more yawns than fireworks.

But the plan to hold hearings on the danger posed by radical Islam in the United States has inspired protest, counterprotest, debate, editorials, petitions and even pray-ins, before the first witness takes the stand.

The goal of the hearings, the first of which is being held Thursday, is "to establish and show the American people that there is a real threat of al-Qaida recruiting and of homegrown terrorists being self-radicalized within the Muslim community," according to Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the new chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

He also charges that Muslim Americans are not doing enough to discourage extremists in their midst.

Opponents say King is stoking anti-Islam hysteria at a time when the Muslim American community is already besieged by attacks on mosques, hate crimes and overzealous surveillance by law enforcement.

Many have compared these proceedings to the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, which fed on fears of Communist subversion.

But King has not budged. He accused critics of being in deep denial of the threat, chiding them for seeking some sort of "kumbaya moment" with extremists and vowing not to bow to what he calls "political correctness."

Now the question is whether the hearings will produce a more secure nation or further alienate the roughly 2.5 million Muslims living in the country.

Check back for streaming video, live reporting and commentary on the hearing

"I think it's legitimate to hold hearings on any aspect of radicalization, and I'm not dismissing these hearings out of hand," said Charles Kurzman, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "At the same time, I would be concerned if an intentionally provocative approach to the hearings reduces cooperation with Muslim American communities, which is the opposite of Congress' intention."

'Going after radicals' Proponents of the hearings insist that they are but one security discussion among many — in this case focused on young Muslim men who become radicalized and then pursue terror plots — not about all who practice the faith.

"He's not going after mainstream Muslims," said Steve Emerson,  executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, who has long warned about the danger posed by home-grown terrorists. "He's going after radicals."

But many Muslims, as well as leaders of other religious and legal advocates, reject the premise of the discussion — that Islam can be singled out as more prone to engender radicalization and violent extremism than other religions.

"By framing his hearings as an investigation of the American Muslim community, the implication is that we should be suspicious of our Muslim neighbors, co-workers or classmates solely on the basis of their religion," Rep. Michael Honda, D-Calif., wrote in a Feb. 28 op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle.

He compared the move to the roundup of Japanese Americans during World War II that led to the three-year internment of his own family. Many civil rights groups also say the hearings set a disturbing precedent.

A coalition of 50 human and civil rights groups, religious organizations and Muslim advocacy groups appealed to King to cancel the hearings or frame them to look at all forms of violence motivated by extremist beliefs, but he rejected their call. 

"Congress should not be focused on First Amendment-protected beliefs and activities," said Farhana Khera, executive director of the San Francisco-based Muslim Advocates. "To the extent that you have Congress exploring violent extremism, it should be focused on criminal behavior. … What faith somebody practices or whatever variant someone practices would not be the proper scope for congressional review."

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People sent a letter sent to King on Tuesday urging him to "reconsider holding the narrowly focused and reckless hearings."

King and Muslims in his Long Island district say the congressman used to be a champion of the Muslim community, visiting mosques and attending their weddings and dinners. He was also one of a handful of Republicans who supported efforts to protect Muslims in the Balkans from aggression by Serbian Orthodox Christians.

But the congressman says he became bitterly disillusioned after 9-11, when some of the local imams rejected the idea that Muslims were behind the devastating attacks.

'Moral myopia' They later recanted and denounced terrorism, but for King the events unveiled the "moral myopia … of the Muslim leaders and their apologists in the media."

In op-ed piece in Newsday, the congressman describes his transformation.

King argues that the threat from Muslims in the U.S. has increased because anti-terrorism measures overseas have made it more difficult for al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations to attack the United States from abroad. As a consequence, he says, the terrorists are now focusing on indoctrinating American Muslims to carry out attacks.

In an interview with NBC's Meredith Vieira on the TODAY show, King defended his belief, telling the anchor, "this is the same message that president's deputy national security advisor gave the other night. He said that al-Qaida has changed its strategy and it is now attempting to recruit and radicalize the Muslim American community. That's where the threat is coming from."

United States to parents from Yemen.

He points to recent plots: The failed Times Square bombing and the Fort Hood massacre, which were perpetrated by American Muslims influenced by Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in the 

After coming under scrutiny by U.S. authorities for contacts with suspected terrorists, including several of the 9/11 hijackers, he moved to Yemen in 2002 and began broadcasting his extremist views over the Internet.

Nidal Hassan, the Army major accused of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, was a U.S. citizen born in the United States to parents who emigrated from Jordan. Although Hassan had exchanged email with al-Awlaki, experts have said he acted on his own.

Faisal Shahzad, who admitted attempting to detonate a car full of explosives in New York’s Times Square, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Pakistan. Shahzad trained with terrorist groups in Pakistan but told authorities that he was inspired by al-Awlaki through the Internet.

King maintains that 80 to 85 percent of mosques in the United States are led by fundamental Islamists — a figure that is broadly disputed — and thus set the stage for radicalization of young Muslims.

Muslim travelers say they're still saddled with 9/11 baggage

'There is no uniformity in the way in which the Department of Justice applies the law at every level'

Bob Croslin  /  for msnbc.com

Government records show that Hassan Shibly of Tampa, Fla., has been pulled aside at airports for secondary screening at least 20 times since 2004.

Imagine it is 5 a.m. and you’ve landed in New York after a 12-hour overseas flight. Standing in the line for U.S. citizens, you wait as a border agent asks passengers ahead a few cursory questions, then waves them through. Your family is instead ushered into a separate room for more than an hour of searching and questioning.

This was the welcome that Hassan Shibly, traveling with his wife and infant son, said they received in August 2010, when they returned to the United States from Jordan, after traveling to Mecca.

“Are you part of any Islamic tribe? Have you ever studied Islam full time? How many gods do you believe in?” “How many prophets do you believe in?” the agent at New York’s JFK Airport asked, according to Shibly, 24, a Syrian-born Muslim American. He said the agent searched his luggage, pulling out his Quran and a hand-held digital prayer counter.

“At the end — I guess (the agent) was trying to be nice — he said, ‘Sorry, I hope you understand we just have to make sure nothing gets blown up,’” said Shibly, a law school graduate who grew up in Buffalo.

A decade after Islamic extremists used airplanes to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Muslim American travelers say they are still paying the price for terror attacks carried out in the name of their religion. At airports, ports and land crossings, many contend, they are repeatedly singled out for special screening and intrusive questioning about their religious beliefs. Others say they have been marooned overseas, barred from flights to the United States.

‘Stories come pouring out' “Whenever a group of Muslims sit together … stories come pouring out,” said real estate agent Jeff Siddique, a Pakistan-born U.S. citizen who has lived in Seattle for 35 years. “It’s story after story after story.”

That is supported by a survey released in August by the Pew Research Center, in which 36 percent of Muslim Americans who traveled by air in the last year said they had been singled out for special screening. The Transportation Security Administration does not keep detailed records, but a spokesman said that less than 3 percent of passengers receive a pat down, a primary form of secondary screening.

Rooting out 'extremist tendencies' The difficulty is knowing where policy ends and personal discretion kicks in.

For example, depending on how the directive to focus on travelers to and from countries with active terrorist organizations is interpreted, it might implicate a large swath of American Muslims. The majority of this population is made up of recent immigrants with connections to their countries of origin in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia.

But Homeland Security recently launched an investigation of a flurry of complaints from Muslims who, like Shibly, say border agents went well beyond asking about their travels. Instead, the travelers say, they were questioned extensively about their religious beliefs and practices. Some reported being asked political questions, such as their views on the Iraq War or President Barack Obama.

One complaint filed by the nonprofit Council on American Islamic Relations with Homeland Security and the Justice Department said its Michigan branch alone has received “dozens of reports (from Muslim travelers) … that CBP agents pointed firearms at them, detained and handcuffed them without predication of crimes or charges, and questioned them about their worship habits.”

Shibly’s case is one of five included in a separate complaint filed by the the nonprofit Muslim Advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union in December.

Another case detailed in the complaint is that of New Jersey resident Lawrence Ho, who says that when he reached the U.S. border from Canada by car in February 2010 he was surprised to find the border agent knew that he had converted to Islam. Ho, who is Chinese American, said the border agent questioned him for nearly four hours about his Muslim beliefs. But an email to the CBP to complain about the encounter at the Rainbow Bridge checkpoint in New York didn’t get far.

"In 2001, the U.S. was attacked by Islamist extremists,” wrote a senior CBP officer in an email response to Ho. “If a CBP officer inquires as to a person's religious beliefs in order to uncover signs of extremist tendencies, that officer is well within his authority."

It is not clear if that statement is in line with Homeland Security policy. In response to msnbc.com queries, Homeland Security did not offer any detail about the ongoing investigation, but provided a general statement by email.

DHS does not tolerate religious discrimination or abusive questioning – period,” wrote Homeland Security spokesman Chris Ortman. The department's office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties “has notified the complainants and their representatives that it will investigate these allegations and, if appropriate, the department will take corrective action.”

The ACLU and Muslim Advocates also filed a Freedom of Information Act request, seeking all records, standards and statistics pertaining to CBP questioning on religious and political beliefs and practices, border training programs and disclosure of how the travelers’ information is used.

“We hope … (DHS) will condemn the practice of asking any citizen or legal resident of the U.S. about their religious beliefs, political beliefs and religious practices,” said ACLU staff attorney Nusrat Choudhury. “We also hope that (it) will note the troubling nature of the fact that so many Muslim legal residents or citizens are being asked these kinds of questions.”

The grading dilemma

The grading dilemma

When it boils down to it, one of the most insidious problems with our education system is its emphasis on grades. Every year, thousands of students are reduced to a letter or number that is not really a reliable indicator of caliber or intellect. How can one diminish a student’s two year effort to one mark earned after a two or three hour exam? Yet this is precisely what we do. The negative impact of this grading on the way our students think, operate and see the world is becoming increasingly obvious.

–Photos by Fayyaz Ahmed/Dawn.com

Educationists and psychologists argue that a reliance on grades as a tool to motivate students is actually detrimental to the process of learning. Having taught for over three years myself, I agree. I cannot make a student love to read by brandishing a -10 at him. To force students to study a subject out of fear is to make it a drag for them. Bonus marks or failing grades serve only to increase anxiety and resentment; they do nothing to motivate students to take an earnest interest in the subject that they study.

Moreover, since grades are the only thing that students are taught to care about, they put in just enough effort to scrape by. I have seen students harass university professors to ‘narrow down’ the scope of a literary text and tell them which ‘five questions’ they should study from so that they can do well in an exam. Ideas such as research, the joy of discovery in critical thought and delving deeper into the book just because it is a profound read leave these students cold. Will all this extra effort be graded? No. Then why do it? So much so, that end of year examinations with their selective studying and cheating do nothing to promote learning or education: many rote learners will proudly boast a first division on their university degree and yet be unable to string a coherent sentence together.

Perhaps the most detrimental effect that our emphasis on grading has had is to kill the spirit of creativity. Most of our A/B graders are not risk takers. They like to play it safe. They don’t like to waste time studying anything ‘outside the syllabus’. Most of all, they hate to make a mistake, a quality which, according to Sir Ken Robinson, is the very antithesis of creative thinking. Solutions to a problem are acquired only after trial and error. But a schooling based on tests, quizzes, evaluations and exams does not reward but rather punishes any ‘out of the box’ approaches. 

This is not to devalue all our A-graders. Rather, it is to say that the A grade devalues students who are intelligent, hard working, and passionate about learning, because it gives no credit to the extra work they put in over the course of their study. The system does not motivate them to take on anything that will challenge them – if they can get an A while sitting within their comfort zones, then so be it. A system based on grades rewards the very mediocrity that we complain is seeping into our national character.

Lastly, grades just aren’t reliable. Some of my most brilliant students are not good exam-takers and it is monumentally unfair that the work they put in during two or more academic years is completely disregarded in one examination session. Many universities and even schools have to resort to interviewing applicants and potential students, despite their excellent grades, because their results do not necessarily indicate work ethic, diligence or intelligence for that matter.

If education is the route to success and the foundation of society, our system seems to be creating a nation that is lazy, apathetic and which cuts corners. There is no joy in learning here. There is cynicism with statements like ‘So what if I didn’t attend school, I got an A didn’t I’? A society where the end justifies the means and a single grade determines a student’s fate is a society bound to stagnate. Not only do we need to re-think the amount of emphasis we give to education in this country, we also need to focus on how to educate our youngsters and what we are teaching them in the process.