A question of morality?

[Indus Pakistan]

Okay Joe, Dave and Al are brothers. Joe the eldest brother runs into massive financial as his business crashes and to stay afloat he borrows £18,000 from Dave. After few months the business begins to stabilize but the business is still not on robust posture and will take at least another year or two to recover and be in position to pay off the creditors, one of whom is his brother Dave.

But Joe begins to hear from people that Dave has been complaining about his £18k debt and this places him under even more pressure as his attention and time is invested in trying to stear the business back from bankruptcy. Because of the pressure he decides under massive compulsion to just hand over his family home to his brother Dave to pay off the debt. The property has some £50k equity with rest [£250,000 mortgage].

Dave now rents the vacant property for two years. After two years the youngest brother Al decides to buy the property from Dave. However Al does not have any money for deposit. So Al and Dave shake hands on a sale price that gaves a Dave net profit of about £30,000. Although the equity is £50k but £18k has to be offset against the debt he had against the the original owner, his elder brother Joe. £30,000 profit in two years is still a good return for him.

Happy with this Dave gives keys to Al who promptly moves into the property. However he does NOT give any deposit or cash payment. Al merely moves in and takes over the mortgage monthly payments. Everything is word of mouth. The property still legally remains in eldest brother Joe's name.

Two years later Dave applies pressure on Al to pay him some amount out of the £50k he owes him for the sale. Al does not have the money. As he comes under more pressure from Dave, Al has two choices. Either pay Dave part [£25k] or hand the keys back. In a sense Dave is in the same predicament as his elder brother Joe was who had been forced by circumstances to hand they keys to Dave.

So what does Al do? He does not have the money. He promptly goes to his father and asks for a bailout of £25k. The father agrees and transfers £30k [£5k extra] to his son Al to pay his debt off to his other son Dave.

Few years pass. Al then finally pays of the other £25 and the process for legal transfer begins. But by now the property price has appreciated by £120,000. This means Al has made a neat £120,000 profit.

So to recapa this.

• Joe gets into trouble.
• Joe gives his home under duress to Dave.
• Joe becomes homeless.
  
• Dave makes £30,000 profit when he sells the house to his other brother Al.
• Al proceeds to make a profit of £120,000 after his father bails him out.

QUESTION? Leaving the legalities out does Joe have right to feel done in?



Please give reasoned, thought out replies. If you can't don't bother. Thanks. There is part 2 to this story but I will move there after having got some replies.

@Desert Fox @Nilgiri and others with working cerebral cortex.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Part 2.

The father is very sick now. Joe has been given Power of Attorney to fly to Pakistan to encash about £200,000 of savings that are in his fathers accounts in a large US bank branch in Islamabad. Joe is thinking.

• After I have cashed the money do I refuse to share it out three ways and instead deduct the £150,000 that both of his brothers profiteered from his misfortune.
• Or let it go and share it three ways.
  
• You know "two wrongs don't make a right".

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Summary of post would be much better for those who have no tim e to read this lengthy and confusing story of Joe, dogy dave and Al

 

[H. Dawary]

Okay Joe, Dave and Al are brothers. Joe the eldest brother runs into massive financial as his business crashes and to stay afloat he borrows £18,000 from Dave. After few months the business begins to stabilize but the business is still not on robust posture and will take at least another year or two to recover and be in position to pay off the creditors, one of whom is his brother Dave.

But Joe begins to hear from people that Dave has been complaining about his £18k debt and this places him under even more pressure as his attention and time is invested in trying to stear the business back from bankruptcy. Because of the pressure he decides under massive compulsion to just hand over his family home to his brother Dave to pay off the debt. The property has some £50k equity with rest [£250,000 mortgage].

Dave now rents the vacant property for two years. After two years the youngest brother Al decides to buy the property from Dave. However Al does not have any money for deposit. So Al and Dave shake hands on a sale price that gaves a Dave net profit of about £30,000. Although the equity is £50k but £18k has to be offset against the debt he had against the the original owner, his elder brother Joe. £30,000 profit in two years is still a good return for him.

Happy with this Dave gives keys to Al who promptly moves into the property. However he does NOT give any deposit or cash payment. Al merely moves in and takes over the mortgage monthly payments. Everything is word of mouth. The property still legally remains in eldest brother Joe's name.

Two years later Dave applies pressure on Al to pay him some amount out of the £50k he owes him for the sale. Al does not have the money. As he comes under more pressure from Dave, Al has two choices. Either pay Dave part [£25k] or hand the keys back. In a sense Dave is in the same predicament as his elder brother Joe was who had been forced by circumstances to hand they keys to Dave.

So what does Al do? He does not have the money. He promptly goes to his father and asks for a bailout of £25k. The father agrees and transfers £30k [£5k extra] to his son Al to pay his debt off to his other son Dave.

Few years pass. Al then finally pays of the other £25 and the process for legal transfer begins. But by now the property price has appreciated by £120,000. This means Al has made a neat £120,000 profit.

So to recapa this.

• Joe gets into trouble.
• Joe gives his home under duress to Dave.
• Joe becomes homeless.
  
• Dave makes £30,000 profit when he sells the house to his other brother Al.
• Al proceeds to make a profit of £120,000 after his father bails him out.

QUESTION? Leaving the legalities out does Joe have right to feel done in?



Please give reasoned, thought out replies. If you can't don't bother. Thanks. There is part 2 to this story but I will move there after having got some replies.

@Desert Fox @Nilgiri and others with working cerebral cortex.

So this is a question of necessity... Each person in their time of need is in some pressure, Joe from his brother, Al also from the same brother Dave.

There is a problem with this question... It is black and white, but you understand that life is not like that. Did Joe or Al speak to their brother despite being in the pressure they are in or not? And what about the Father who is still alive, did he intervene on their behalf.

If you are looking at the money, it will blind you. There is no price on morality, each individual decision must be made unconditionally, if there is a price tag, then that defeats the whole purpose.

Now coming back to the actual question... Does Joe have the right to feel done in?

That all depends on him and his character... If he is the type that blames others, then yes he should feel done in, if on the other hand he blames all that is happened to him on himself then he shouldn't feel done in. My answer is that it all depends on his character.

But I get the feeling, that you are trying to evaluate us, if that is the case, then I can't really say as I have never been in that position, and I can only answer when I am in that position.

 

[hussain0216]

If they weren't brothers, then it's just business and Joe just got a bad draw


But because they were brothers, Joe could rightly feel that rather than support him when he was under duress, his brothers (Dave in particular) took advantage of his poor circumstances and left him in the lurch whilst they made money

Why did the father not bail out Joe? Or is it simply because Joe did not ask?

Fess up, which one are you Joe, Dave or Al?

If it was my brother's I would be a bit pissed off

 

[H. Dawary]

Okay I just saw Part two now lol... Again that comes down to Joe's character. It's like when three philosophers asked one another this question... "what would each man do if they came across another man in the forest" 1 Philosopher said "they will be friends", another said "they will walk past each other" the third said "they will fight each other". But Schopenhauer said, that it all depends on their will, which I agree with.

 

[halupridol]

If this is about you, ,, I suggest ,decide on something u can live with.
Basically which is straight according to YOUR compass of morality, , rather thn asking opinions of teenagers here.
The fact that u r discussing it here gives me the impression tht u probably know what is the right way for u to act.
Don't expect the readers to opine effectively as we don't the whole story,,we don't know much of the plot, the characters, the context nothing more thn a vague plot wid a Joe who got greedy.
Expect to get stereotypical responses about being just n honest big hearted good human being(plus bonus religious scriptures)

 

[EasyNow]

This is an interesting scenario.

My take is that Joe was taken advantage of by Dave.

As a brother, in his time of need, there is no way Dave should even have considered taking property from his brother - like it's some random business deal. Instead he has exercised his family link to exploit Joe - If it wasn't his brother, Joe would most likely not have given his house to someone over a debt - he would have looked to negotiate or extend the debt.

Al on the other hand is not blameable for the situation even if he has benefitted the most. His deal was straightforward and a price was set fairly at the time - where and how he sourced the money is his business. The money was the father's to give, the brothers cannot complain.

But in the end, despite everything Joe can't keep extra family money as compensation. He was exploited by his brother but he accepted it at the time - it is unfair for him to try and recoup it now in an underhanded way. That would make Joe truly guilty because another truth is that, Joe did create the situation in the first place. He did bring debt into the picture, his own needs caused the chain of events so he needs to accept that.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Why did the father not bail out Joe? Or is it simply because Joe did not ask?

All fingers are not considered as equal by some. Joe did not expect any bailout. Thus Joe did not ask. And it is irelevant how I fit in this or not. Just focus on the equation presented.

* To make profit would you not need to invest something of your own? Al never invested a dime. Any money paid came from his father. Thus any profit made is his father's profit, which goes to the same pot as his estate including mone in Pk.

@Hakim Dawary

 

[313ghazi]

A few thoughts.

1. Joe got screwed.
2. Dave is a cun* of a brother.
3. Al is a cun* too for taking his brother Joe's house.
4. Thier father should not have sat around and watched his injustice.
5. Joe should have just sold the house on the open market in the first place.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but Joe should think about this legally. If he doesn't split the cash, his leach brothers will only take him to court. Any decent judge will award a 3 way split according to shariah principles, I suspect the same would be true in a British Court.

No court in the land is going to cut Joe a break because he got screwed earlier, especially as he was a willing participant to it. Emotional pressure doesn't count I think.

If I was to advice Joe I'd let them profiteer and let Allah judge them. If I WAS Joe, I'd have told Dave to stfu in the first place. If I did end up in Joe's current predicament, what would I do? It depends.

1. Is Joe still broke? If so I'd be tempted to keep the cash. Especially if Joe has his own family to support and F the morals. If not I'd let it go.

2. If I did keep the money, I'd figure out the legality of it first. No point spending it all on lawyers and bribing judges.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

A few thoughts.

1. Joe got screwed.
2. Dave is a cun* of a brother.
3. Al is a cun* too for taking his brother Joe's house.
4. Thier father should not have sat around and watched his injustice.
5. Joe should have just sold the house on the open market in the first place.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but Joe should think about this legally. If he doesn't split the cash, his leach brothers will only take him to court. Any decent judge will award a 3 way split according to shariah principles, I suspect the same would be true in a British Court.

No court in the land is going to cut Joe a break because he got screwed earlier, especially as he was a willing participant to it. Emotional pressure doesn't count I think.

If I was to advice Joe I'd let them profiteer and let Allah judge them. If I WAS Joe, I'd have told Dave to stfu in the first place. If I did end up in Joe's current predicament, what would I do? It depends.

1. Is Joe still broke? If so I'd be tempted to keep the cash. Especially if Joe has his own family to support and F the morals. If not I'd let it go.

2. If I did keep the money, I'd figure out the legality of it first. No point spending it all on lawyers and bribing judges.

Thanks. Very clearly enunciated. Sometimes when we over think we end up being clouded and lost in the 'ocean'. Joe has recovered. His business after some bumps took off and now he is sat on a small fortune. Houses, cars and has family. And he had family when he lost everything/became homeless. The father did sit around and only bailed out Al. Which was denied to Joe. Even when he and his family drowned.

And this is not about the secular law. More morals and Islamic precepts that apply on this story. I am particularly interested in the Islamic view on this.

If he doesn't split the cash, his leach brothers will only take him to court.

They will struggle. The father is too ill. The mother is now in charge and she is pro Joe. This really gives Joe licence to settle scores.

 

[313ghazi]

Thanks. Very clearly enunciated. Sometimes when we over think we end up being clouded and lost in the 'ocean'. Joe has recovered. His business after some bumps took off and now he is sat on a small fortune. Houses, cars and has family. And he had family when he lost everything/became homeless. The father did sit around and only bailed out Al. Which was denied to Joe. Even when he and his family drowned.

And this is not about the secular law. More morals and Islamic precepts that apply on this story. I am particularly interested in the Islamic view on this.

In that case Joe should just split it 3 ways (assuming there are no sisters, wife or parents).

Islamically Joe was screwed by Dave and a just Qazi should order Dave to pay back everything he gained from the sale of the house which wasn't the original debt. It was wrong of him to accept more than the debt amount. Joe won't find one of those in Pakistan.

Al was sly in buying the house knowing Joe was being screwed, though I'm not sure he broke any Shariah laws, albeit it could be argued that the house was not Daves to sell. However Joe would have been involved in the legal paperwork and hence had provided consent of the sale. In fact Daves lawyer could argue that by signing the papers over Joe signed away his right to expect anything from Dave. Lawyers are cun*s too though - is Dave a lawyer?

Islam has no scope for two wrongs making a right. I have very briefly studied inheritance in Islam and I believe the father has a duty to share his wealth between his children equally (even when he is alive). An educated molvi might be best to advise. I recommend Shaykh Muhammad Aslam of Birmingham UK, though he could refer Joe to someone else.

Islamically Joe has been wronged, but finding an Islamic authority to dispense justice is near impossible. I suspect it will have to be left to Allah.

For Joe to dispense his own justice, it is not Islamically approved, in my limited opinion. Although Joe would be a bigger man than me to do the right thing.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

However Joe would have been involved in the legal paperwork and hence had provided consent of the sale.

In the entire story the property remained legally in name of Joe and only now with final payment by Al to Dave is the name about to be changed at Land Registry. All 'transfers' were by word of mouth. It went from Joe > Dave > Al by word of mouth. Only now is transfer going to be registered.

 

[H. Dawary]

All fingers are not considered as equal by some. Joe did not expect any bailout. Thus Joe did not ask. And it is irelevant how I fit in this or not. Just focus on the equation presented.

* To make profit would you not need to invest something of your own? Al never invested a dime. Any money paid came from his father. Thus any profit made is his father's profit, which goes to the same pot as his estate including mone in Pk.

@Hakim Dawary

Your Post has become a philosophical issue about morality.

Schopenhauer said "the greatest injustices occur we say not I not I not I" and he believed that justice began when that separation of the "I" is no longer present and you see yourself in that person.

And at this point he presented a question... As I will relate it to you... Suppose there were two men who were injured to the severest degree, and to both of them that man was present before them, and both had the desire to do whatever they wanted upon that man without worrying of any consequences as they would be relieve of it. The first man completely and utterly destroys the culprit standing in front of him in the worst forms of torture, whereas the second cannot bring himself to do it and as he cries he utters "I see myself in him"...

Our wills are different, from the moment we are born until the day we die, we are inclined towards that which we are. This then begets the question of freewill, which Philosophers till this day have not figured out, although there is a strong lean towards determinism. But that is a topic of itself. Book is The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics (1841) by Arthur Schopenhauer

Let me ask you a question @Indus Pakistan

If Dave and AI felt guilty after the deed was done, and again they were put in a similar situation years later, would they do it again?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

If Dave and AI felt guilty after the deed was done, and again they were put in a similar situation years later, would they do it again?

No.