Queen Mary student brought sixth formers to join ISIS Watch

Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Joint Honours student suspected of fleeing to ISIS

He was arrested in Turkey

An Engineering and Science student has been arrested after it is believed he planned to join ISIS.
Mohamed Amoudi, 19, was caught in Turkey and thought to be travelling to Syria.
Amoudi was accompanied by two Wembley schoolboys, who he is said to have initially met through evangelical group Strivin Muslims, of which they were all members.
The trio were brought back to Britain over the weekend and taken into police custody, under the accusation they had been planning terrorist attacks after the younger boys’ parents pleaded for help from the local police.
All three have been released on bail, and are yet to be charged.

The Queen Mary student is thought to have “influenced” the sixth-formers with his radical religious views, publicly expressed on social media.
Recently, he attended a talk by the controversial cleric Haitham al-Haddad, who has been criticised for making homophobic remarks and encouraging discord between believers and non-believers of Islam, stressing harmony between the two is an indication of deviating “from the right path”.
An active member of the University’s Islamic Society, Amoudi’s claimed affiliation to terrorism has obviously sparked outrage amongst his fellow peers, particularly towards the impact extremism has upon the wider Muslim community.
Second year English student, Tasnia Khan, told The Tab her worries about the media coverage of his arrest.
She said: “They correlate being a regular worshipper at a mosque, which is a commendable act in Islam, and being part of the Islamic Society, through which members meet people of the same faith and support each other, to joining ISIS.
“Where is the logic in that? I go to the mosque and am also a part of the ISoc, does that mean I and all the hundreds of thousands of other Muslims are going to join ISIS too?”
Tasnia added: “There are millions of Muslims worldwide, and only a tiny proportion can be described as terrorists.
“If that boy was influenced by ISIS, then young Muslims need to be very wary of who they affiliate themselves with.”

http://queenmary.tab.co.uk/2015/03/2...eeing-to-isis/
0
reply
_Fergo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
It's so sad when young people basically throw their lives away to join ISIS. Most will regret it, but it'll be too late unfortunately...
0
reply
Nuvertion
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by *Stefan*)
It's so sad when young people basically throw their lives away to join ISIS. Most will regret it, but it'll be too late unfortunately...
I'm not sure how you could feel sorry for people joining a death cult that kills and rapes innocents. Anyone more than 7 years old should know right and wrong, if they didn't by then, then there isn't much hope for them and I'd rather they weren't anywhere near me.
2
reply
_Fergo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Nuvertion)
I'm not sure how you could feel sorry for people joining a death cult that kills and rapes innocents. Anyone more than 7 years should know right and wrong, if they didn't by then, then there isn't much hope for them and I'd rather there weren't anywhere near me.
I'm not feeling sorry for the individuals involved, but rather how these individuals arrive to such hasty decisions (-does that make sense?). It's tragic that in one moment you live in a developed society -about which many people would literally kill for-, study at university and probably enjoy life and then you decide to reject everything and join murderers and rapists.

Still, I think some individuals are more susceptible to brainwashing than others, so I guess they should be given a second chance (provided of course they haven't managed to join yet -things are irreparable then).
0
reply
Pride
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Nuvertion)
I'm not sure how you could feel sorry for people joining a death cult that kills and rapes innocents. Anyone more than 7 years should know right and wrong, if they didn't by then, then there isn't much hope for them and I'd rather there weren't anywhere near me.
Where do you think 'right and wrong' comes from? You're eluding to there being an absolute morality, and that 7 year olds should have insight into it. Where do you think they would be able to obtain it from? Is it just from being a mature enough human being?

But then, I thought the most important thing to humans was to survive? I thought all that matters is that we survive to pass our genes on to our kids, so that they live and have the same goals, and be a part of this (hopefully... I think) endless cycle? So then these relatively modern constructs of what is right and wrong, like 'killing is wrong' 'stealing is wrong' 'criminal justice systems and democracy are 'right' and are authorities that should be protected' are all just constructs put in place to protect the survival of the human race... right?

But then surely there comes a time when surviving would force you to priortise your life over others? Would that be acceptable? And what about animal rights? And aren't people's decisions solely the result of their genes and their interactions with the environment? Then how can justice exist?

My point is this: people don't agree on morality. The idea of there being an absolute morality, without there being an authority to make that judgement (ie. God) doesn't actually make sense. And a 7 year old probably wouldn't have considered the fact that for there to be an absolute morality (eg. killing another human is definitely wrong), there must be a god-figure to assert it.
0
reply
Nuvertion
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Pride)
Where do you think 'right and wrong' comes from? You're eluding to there being an absolute morality, and that 7 year olds should have insight into it. Where do you think they would be able to obtain it from? Is it just from being a mature enough human being?

But then, I thought the most important thing to humans was to survive? I thought all that matters is that we survive to pass our genes on to our kids, so that they live and have the same goals, and be a part of this (hopefully... I think) endless cycle? So then these relatively modern constructs of what is right and wrong, like 'killing is wrong' 'stealing is wrong' 'criminal justice systems and democracy are 'right' and are authorities that should be protected' are all just constructs put in place to protect the survival of the human race... right?

But then surely there comes a time when surviving would force you to priortise your life over others? What that be acceptable? And what about animal rights? And aren't people's decisions solely the result of their genes and their interactions with the environment? Then how can justice exist?

My point is this: people don't agree on morality. The idea of there being an absolute morality, without there being an authority to make that judgement (ie. God) doesn't actually make sense. And a 7 year old probably wouldn't have considered the fact that for there to be an absolute morality (eg. killing another human is definitely wrong), there must be a god-figure to assert it.
I never said there was such a thing as absolute morality, there isn't, morality is based on context and the context is people willingly traveling from developed countries to support a terrorist organisation. That is immoral, I know that because I have empathy, I don't like being hurt and these people are supporting a group that hurts others. The more empathy you have the better idea you have of what is and isn't moral. If the people in this example had their familys abducted by IS and were told to join or their family would be killed, I'd feel sorry for them (even if I did think it was a stupid decision to join). They'd also receive a smaller punishment for doing so (possibly avoiding one) in most countries. Relative morality exists, every court in every developed country believes that and a young person should have a basic understanding of it.
0
reply
Pride
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Nuvertion)
I would hope an eight year old (I did say more than seven) would think hurting others is wrong, the people in this example were more than 15. I never said there was such a thing as absolute morality, there isn't, morality is based on context and the context is people willingly traveling from developed countries to support a terrorist organisation. That is immoral, I know that because I have empathy, I don't like being hurt and these people are supporting a group that hurts others. The more empathy you have the better idea you have of what is and isn't moral.
But how can you assert that to be objectively true? How can you assert that people should be empathetic? You're saying that supporting a terrorist organisation is immoral, because it's not empathetic. But people fight in wars where their aim is to kill the opposition. That's not empathetic. They've made priorities. In the same way, supporters of terrorists have made different priorities. But with a morality based on context, or rather, on our perceptions of the context (which differ), I would argue that you cannot assert that it's immoral. I would simply ask the question, why is it immoral? Why should you empathise? Why do you think what you think?
0
reply
TheBBQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Aren't some members on here also a part of that society...?
0
reply
Nuvertion
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by sacca)
It shouldn't be illegal to declare that you support isis, what happened to freedom of speech people?! Ever since charlie hebdo everybody has been raving about freedom of speech but when it comes to freedom of speech for muslims (not jews) its a whole different story, blatant islamophobia!
Are you saying IS is an organisation supported by real Muslims because people here have been try to persuade me otherwise?
0
reply
LastDupeofTMD
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
I'm sorry but anyone who joins ISIS should not be returned to Britain regardless of age, they were joining a terrorist cult. I don't want those *******s walking my streets.
0
reply
Nuvertion
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Pride)
But how can you assert that to be objectively true? How can you assert that people should be empathetic? You're saying that supporting a terrorist organisation is immoral, because it's not empathetic. But people fight in wars where their aim is to kill the opposition. That's not empathetic. They've made priorities. In the same way, supporters of terrorists have made different priorities. But with a morality based on context, or rather, on our perceptions of the context (which differ), I would argue that you cannot assert that it's immoral. I would simply ask the question, why is it immoral? Why should you empathise? Why do you think what you think?
You said morality exists to protect the human race, my country has had less genocide, killing, crime, etc. in the past century than most. People are thriving here and one of those reasons is because it has a better idea of morality than your average Islamic country. Take a look at all of the countries currently doing well, I'm sure their laws are pretty similar. The laws the majority of them agree on is what you should look to for moral guidance.

Psychopaths have been shown to lack activity in certain parts of their brain that's related to empathy. If a person has more activity in those parts of his brain then he's more capable of empathy and therefore has a better moral compass. The older you are, the more time you've had to develop empathy. These are rough but objective ways to measure how moral a country/person is.
0
reply
Marco1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Pride)
But how can you assert that to be objectively true? How can you assert that people should be empathetic? You're saying that supporting a terrorist organisation is immoral, because it's not empathetic. But people fight in wars where their aim is to kill the opposition. That's not empathetic. They've made priorities. In the same way, supporters of terrorists have made different priorities. But with a morality based on context, or rather, on our perceptions of the context (which differ), I would argue that you cannot assert that it's immoral. I would simply ask the question, why is it immoral? Why should you empathise? Why do you think what you think?
You ask, 'How can one assert that people should be empathetic?' On this earth there are numerous different moral systems of different tribes, groups, religions, . . . This fact alone does not offer proof that there is no objective morality. I believe sincerely that there is an inbuilt human moral compass which is in us all at birth. We do not like to see others suffer unnecessarily. If we do it is an anomaly and indicator of psychological malfunction/illness/disturbance. Even some other species, dogs for example, have a natural propensity for empathy. Scientific tests have proved it to be fact. The answer is obvious. We are human beings and in order to live together we need to care and have compassion. If you don't think empathy is necessary than you paint a loveless, dark picture for humankind.

You ask, 'Why is it immoral?' It's immoral because the outfit they wish to join rapes and kills innocents, tortures, enslaves, defiles priceless historic monuments, bla bla bla. You might argue that's a subjective morality. I'd say no. Some things are plain evil and we all should know it. Perhaps some cannot readily empathise and know in their conscience when something hurtful to an innocent party is wrong, because they have been psychologically conditioned to think in a way contra to what is fundamentally good. There are so many fine writings that elucidate much better than I can on why kindness, empathy, compassion etc is the right and noble path for a human being. The opposite is tyranny, cruelty, evil. Seek wisdom and you will find it. It's easier than it's ever been now with google at your fingertips.We are moral beings with a brain to think with. Any young fool knows how ISIS treats those individuals with beliefs different to their own and it ain't a pretty picture is it? It's a grotesque and macabre one. If one wants to contribute to a group whose trademark is callous mass cruelty, then why do you think that would not be an immoral act?
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Manny_khalae)
Well @sacca ISIS is hardly a good cause.


Posted from TSR Mobile
http://isis-innovation.com/
0
reply
Pride
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Marco1)
You ask, 'How can one assert that people should be empathetic?' On this earth there are numerous different moral systems of different tribes, groups, religions, . . . This fact alone does not offer proof that there is no objective morality. I believe sincerely that there is an inbuilt human moral compass which is in us all at birth. We do not like to see others suffer unnecessarily. If we do it is an anomaly and indicator of psychological malfunction/illness/disturbance. Even some other species, dogs for example, have a natural propensity for empathy. Scientific tests have proved it to be fact. The answer is obvious. We are human beings and in order to live together we need to care and have compassion. If you don't think empathy is necessary than you paint a loveless, dark picture for humankind.

You ask, 'Why is it immoral?' It's immoral because the outfit they wish to join rapes and kills innocents, tortures, enslaves, defiles priceless historic monuments, bla bla bla. You might argue that's a subjective morality. I'd say no. Some things are plain evil and we all should know it. Perhaps some cannot readily empathise and know in their conscience when something hurtful to an innocent party is wrong, because they have been psychologically conditioned to think in a way contra to what is fundamentally good. There are so many fine writings that elucidate much better than I can on why kindness, empathy, compassion etc is the right and noble path for a human being. The opposite is tyranny, cruelty, evil. Seek wisdom and you will find it. It's easier than it's ever been now with google at your fingertips.We are moral beings with a brain to think with. Any young fool knows how ISIS treats those individuals with beliefs different to their own and it ain't a pretty picture is it? It's a grotesque and macabre one. If one wants to contribute to a group whose trademark is callous mass cruelty, then why do you think that would not be an immoral act?
Oh I agree that there is an objective morality. Wholeheartedly. But my point is that it must come from God.

This idea that an objective morality is solely human, and perhaps that it stems from a general human instinct to survive and help other humans to survive, doesn't really hold in my opinion. People generally think that it's important to be considerate of other people, but then many will also prioritise themselves over others if that's what's needed to survive. Then that morality isn't objective then. It's only there for selfish reasons, and so is subject to change if personal cost outweigh benefit...

What do you think?
0
reply
Pride
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Nuvertion)
You said morality exists to protect the human race, my country has had less genocide, killing, crime, etc. in the past century than most. People are thriving here and one of those reasons is because it has a better idea of morality than your average Islamic country. Take a look at all of the countries currently doing well, I'm sure their laws are pretty similar. The laws the majority of them agree on is what you should look to for moral guidance.

Psychopaths have been shown to lack activity in certain parts of their brain that's related to empathy. If a person has more activity in those parts of his brain then he's more capable of empathy and therefore has a better moral compass. The older you are, the more time you've had to develop empathy. These are rough but objective ways to measure how moral a country/person is.
'activity' in part of the brain? People are more complex than that. There is no study where the findings are that criminality/psychopathy is caused by something as vague as 'brain activity' (or lack).

Rough, but objective? But fully grown people disagree on what is right or wrong. People's moralities are largely influenced by their experiences. It's why laws are debated and changed.

I should repeat that I actually agree that there is an objective morality. I just think that it is revealed to us through God. I can't see how there can be an objective morality if there is no god to assert it.
0
reply
Marco1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Pride)
Oh I agree that there is an objective morality. Wholeheartedly. But my point is that it must come from God.

This idea that an objective morality is solely human, and perhaps that it stems from a general human instinct to survive and help other humans to survive, doesn't really hold in my opinion. People generally think that it's important to be considerate of other people, but then many will also prioritise themselves over others if that's what's needed to survive. Then that morality isn't objective then. It's only there for selfish reasons, and so is subject to change if personal cost outweigh benefit...

What do you think?
I think that there is an objective morality, a higher way and a higher order of things. I think a self seeking morality isn't true morality at all. To act morally may require making personal sacrifices for the benefit of others. Good is not always about personal gain but about doing the right thing. I believe there is beauty, truth and a complimentary similarity in the virtuous Christian life, virtue ethics, Nichomachean ethics. I think the moral teachings of the Buddha are of a similar enlightened level - gentle and insightful, fostering compassion for others. Better not let myself get side-tracked into a huge topic. Yes I agree in an objective, God given, divine universal law. It involves personal sacrifice, and when one can make that sacrifice without reservation and with only love in one's heart, then one is perhaps really touching one's full potential and beginning to function on the highest spiritual level. I also believe God is forgiving and loving and ultimately mysterious and immeasurable - certainly not some capricious anthropomorphic being of vengeance and silly promises.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Pride)
Oh I agree that there is an objective morality. Wholeheartedly. But my point is that it must come from God.
None of the existing gods is moral.

(Original post by Pride)
This idea that an objective morality is solely human, and perhaps that it stems from a general human instinct to survive and help other humans to survive, doesn't really hold in my opinion.
It does if you consider it under the framework of evolution. People who do not help other humans generally do not survive, and cannot mate with other humans to pass on their genes. It certainly holds much water than to claim that it comes from 'something' 'somewhere' we have absolutely no idea what 'it' is.

(Original post by Pride)
People generally think that it's important to be considerate of other people, but then many will also prioritise themselves over others if that's what's needed to survive.
And if morality comes from 'god', this suggests that one or some of the following:
1. 'god' has failed to give everyone morality;
2. 'god' does not think giving everyone morality is a good thing (but is this behaviour moral in itself?);
3. 'god' thinks it is normal to be selfish.

(Original post by Pride)
Then that morality isn't objective then. It's only there for selfish reasons, and so is subject to change if personal cost outweigh benefit...
Morality is not objective, and it's also very complex under different contexts with different concerns and stakeholders.

(Original post by Pride)
'activity' in part of the brain? People are more complex than that.
The brain is very complex.

(Original post by Pride)
There is no study where the findings are that criminality/psychopathy is caused by something as vague as 'brain activity' (or lack).
Yes, there are.

(Original post by Pride)
Rough, but objective? But fully grown people disagree on what is right or wrong. People's moralities are largely influenced by their experiences. It's why laws are debated and changed.
So on what basis can you see that there is objective morality from anything anyone?

(Original post by Pride)
I should repeat that I actually agree that there is an objective morality. I just think that it is revealed to us through God. I can't see how there can be an objective morality if there is no god to assert it.
Does 'god' need to 'assert' it further from the point of creation?

Once again, your reasoning shows that either 'god' is unable or unwilling to install morality in everyone.

(Original post by Marco1)
To act morally may require making personal sacrifices for the benefit of others. Good is not always about personal gain but about doing the right thing.
Doing the 'right' thing makes you feel better about yourself - that is a personal gain, and the exact reason why anyone does anything good, ever if it costs them them effort, money, or their lives.

(Original post by Marco1)
I think the moral teachings of the Buddha are of a similar enlightened level - gentle and insightful, fostering compassion for others.
The Buddha was a human, and in buddhism everyone can be a 'godlike being'. Now tell me again how humans can't be moral on their own?

(Original post by Marco1)
Yes I agree in an objective, God given, divine universal law. It involves personal sacrifice,
Being able to feel better about yourself is not a total sacrifice.

(Original post by Marco1)
I also believe God is forgiving and loving and ultimately mysterious and immeasurable - certainly not some capricious anthropomorphic being of vengeance and silly promises.
For someone who asserts that humans can do little, you're doing a whole lot - you're creating 'god' in your mind and setting the moral codes for god based on nothing but your personal conviction.
0
reply
Schrödingers Cat
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Little Toy Gun)
None of the existing gods is moral.



It does if you consider it under the framework of evolution. People who do not help other humans generally do not survive, and cannot mate with other humans to pass on their genes. It certainly holds much water than to claim that it comes from 'something' 'somewhere' we have absolutely no idea what 'it' is.



And if morality comes from 'god', this suggests that one or some of the following:
1. 'god' has failed to give everyone morality;
2. 'god' does not think giving everyone morality is a good thing (but is this behaviour moral in itself?);
3. 'god' thinks it is normal to be selfish.



Morality is not objective, and it's also very complex under different contexts with different concerns and stakeholders.



The brain is very complex.



Yes, there are.





So on what basis can you see that there is objective morality from anything anyone?



Does 'god' need to 'assert' it further from the point of creation?

Once again, your reasoning shows that either 'god' is unable or unwilling to install morality in everyone.



Doing the 'right' thing makes you feel better about yourself - that is a personal gain, and the exact reason why anyone does anything good, ever if it costs them them effort, money, or their lives.



The Buddha was a human, and in buddhism everyone can be a 'godlike being'. Now tell me again how humans can't be moral on their own?



Being able to feel better about yourself is not a total sacrifice.



For someone who asserts that humans can do little, you're doing a whole lot - you're creating 'god' in your mind and setting the moral codes for god based on nothing but your personal conviction.

Would you like your 9 iron for all those pars you just made?
0
reply
Nuvertion
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Pride)
'activity' in part of the brain? People are more complex than that. There is no study where the findings are that criminality/psychopathy is caused by something as vague as 'brain activity' (or lack).

Rough, but objective? But fully grown people disagree on what is right or wrong. People's moralities are largely influenced by their experiences. It's why laws are debated and changed.

I should repeat that I actually agree that there is an objective morality. I just think that it is revealed to us through God. I can't see how there can be an objective morality if there is no god to assert it.
I'm not sure how you can make such a bold statement: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...in-psychopaths

The brain makes all of your decisions, you can only disagree with that if you're religious which appears to be the case. I'm not sure what point you're making by continuously enclosing activity in quotes, I'm not interested in a religious debate. By the way, applying science couldn't be more objective than say, believing what your family told you. I've already indirectly explained the quote in italics. As for the underlined, where do you think these experiences are stored, the brain maybe?

There is no objective morality, every court in the west uses relative mortality. For example, saying stealing should get your hands cut off is ridiculous. What if you were starving? What if you stole one loaf of bread and someone else stole £10,000, do they deserve the same punishment? Everything is based on context, there is no rule that always applies no matter what the context.
0
reply
Marco1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Little Toy Gun)
Doing the 'right' thing makes you feel better about yourself - that is a personal gain, and the exact reason why anyone does anything good, ever if it costs them them effort, money, or their lives.
It may do but not always. If it makes you feel better that is a bonus. If you only do it for how it makes you feel then you are unfortunately functioning only on the level of an adolescent. Motivation for doing right is indicative of the individual's level of psychological/intellectual/spiritual maturity. To act because of what one gains from it is not a noble act in itself. The best motivation for doing right is acting so, simply because one realises it is worth doing so for its own sake. It is an unselfish act, without passion or desire.

(Original post by Little Toy Gun)
The Buddha was a human, and in buddhism everyone can be a 'godlike being'. Now tell me again how humans can't be moral on their own?
Of course we can be moral on our own. We are free agents capable of reason and able to choose and decide. Within us is the divine universal law. We all have a divine essence within. Or as Christ himself said, 'The kingdom of heaven lies within'. Our job is too realise and seek that. If a humane morality is not taught, then it needs to be learned from life and one's own inquiry. Many of course live and die in ignorance. That's a bit of a waste if you ask me but that's the way it is. Perhaps there is something in the theory of reincarnation but anyway. None of us are perfect but the eternal objective good, exists regardless, thank God. We all fail to act well sometimes but it is about seeking to be wiser and better individuals. Socrates, the wisest man in Ancient Greece said the unexamined life is not worth living. To live fully is to seek truth and know thyself.[/QUOTE]
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (16)
7.05%
They might tell the bully (24)
10.57%
I don't think they'd understand (38)
16.74%
It might lead to more bullying (80)
35.24%
There's nothing they could do (69)
30.4%

Watched Threads

View All