Daily Times

Jesus Christ referred to corruption and exploitation, stating that righteousness alone qualifies one for membership in God’s kingdom (John 2: 13-25).

The topic of corruption is discussed in Quran 50 times in 47 verses (thelastdialogue.org). For example, “but if they turn away, then indeed – Allah is Knowing of the corrupt” (Qur’an 3: 63). “Who break the covenant of Allah after contracting it and sever that which Allah has ordered to be joined and cause corruption on earth. It is those who are the losers” (Qur’an 2:27). “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment” (Qur’an 5:33).

“Prophet Muhammad added his voice to say that all the parties to bribery ‘the bribe-taker, the bribe-giver, and their go-between,’ invoke Allah’s wrath and condemnation upon themselves. It is further reported that the ‘Messenger of Allah cursed the donor of bribery and its recipient in all matters that involve judgment or ruling'” hashimkamali.com (Jan. 2013).

“‘Quran prohibits ‘devouring/misappropriation of the property of others’ (akl al-maal bi’l-batil — Q 4:29 and 2:188), which is a broad concept that subsumes such other offences as fraud, hoarding, theft, and gambling. The text also condemns those in authority who spread corruption and mischief among people, bestowing favours on some and oppressing others (Q 28:4 and 89:10-12)” hashimkamali.com (Jan. 2013).

The ethical teaching of the Prophet Mohammed clearly indicates that humans have always grappled with the menace of corruption (Quran 83: 1-5).

Corruption is so prevalent in many countries that it has infiltrated religious institutions, including churches. Stueckelberger (2010) worry that in certain countries, corruption is as normal in a religious institution as it is in public. A report by the Commission for the Elimination of Corruption shows that the Ministry of Religious Affairs is the most corrupt among the Indonesian government institutions (Kompas, 29 November 2011).

Transparency International (TI) does not believe that belief in hell will help fight corruption. However, Marquette (2010) states that “many of the most corrupt countries in the world (according to TI’s Corruption Perceptions Index) also rank highly in terms of religiosity (using indicators such as those used in the Pew Global Attitudes Project). So why is it that apparently religious people seem to engage in corruption to the point where it becomes a ‘way of life’ in many countries?”

The failure to follow a religion is mostly due to a tendency to comply with the prevailing cultural and social standards of a society. Thus, most people perceive religion as a symbol to participate in religious activities does not mean that they are moral. As stated before, religious symbolism is dominated by social, ethical commitments. As a result, they are ‘trapped in symbolism-formalism’ that has become the essence, thus failing to recognize the true essence of a religion. As such, they fail to differentiate practicing religious rites from social, ethical commitment.

Therefore, any researcher, who wants to find causes and solutions to corruption, has to understand the cultural and social standards of the society to properly analyse why corruption is so entrenched in a society and is hard to stop.

To understand why corruption exists, one must study social, cultural standards, regional and national policies to understand what makes people tick. Then and only then, one would understand whether religion plays a role in how attitudes are formed or whether religion has any impact of moral and moral reasoning for their attitudes.

However, many studies show no clear-cut relation between religion and attitude toward moral issues. It is more of a pick and choose phenomenon. That is, religious people sometimes take a more ‘moral’ position on issues, and sometimes they do not. Also, besides religion, many other factors, such as age, education level, gender, engagement with a wider community, the nature of the moral issue itself, and so on, may influence attitudes towards morality. In most cases, religion — theology or religious teachings — seems to have very little influence on morality and corruption. Instead, the prevailing social and cultural standards significantly affect individuals’ attitudes towards corruption. As Marquette (2010) has stated, “the influence of religion lies less in what the texts say than in how interpreters, priests, and so on interpret them and also in how their relevance and importance to collective social behaviour is understood.”

Any community (country) concerned about corruption must either change its cultures and social structures or accept corruption as a way of life

Now, more researchers think knowing the cultural reasons for corruption may help find a solution. Many of them believe that understanding why individuals choose to be corrupt and how their values and attitudes towards corruption are shaped may help find a solution to this problem.

Marquette (2008) has stated that researchers in India, UK, and Nigeria asked people of all religions and professions about what they believe corruption is and whether religion shapes their attitudes and behavior towards corruption.

They found that all respondents understood the meaning of corruption, and some did not tolerate it. In India, the respondents knew the consequences of corruption on poverty, on growth, on trust in government, and in society in general. Nigerian respondents thought of corruption as a lack of the fear of God and linked religion and corruption. However, all saw corruption as being so deeply entrenched within the system – ‘systemic corruption’ -and believed no one could stop it. As such, they believed it is better to join corruption rather than fight it. Some respondents thought that in a corrupt system, choosing not to be corrupt put one’s own family, one’s children at a severe disadvantage compared to others.

Some respondents did not see any conflict with their values when paying a bribe. They saw it as a way of life to get by. However, they thought that a person sitting across the desk asking for a bribe must not be ‘truly religious’ because they are demonstrating a clear lack of ethics. Regardless, each side gets something in return; respondents were reluctant to condemn this behavior as unethical and unreligious.

Therefore, many people view religion as more for show than a belief that guides people’s day-to-day life. As Marquette (2008) has stated, “Research on religion and attitudes towards deviant behaviour suggests that individuals’ interpretation of messages on moral behaviour is significant in terms of determining their acceptance or rejection of deviancy, but there is little evidence to suggest that the religious will reject behaviour that is ‘anti-social’ any more than the non-religious.” That is, a religious person may reject a corrupt behavior due to their religious belief, but that depends on how logical those people are in knowing right from wrong.

As part of a religious community, an individual is likely to face conflicting messages in terms of behaviour deemed ‘deviant,’ particularly where corruption is widespread — systemic even (Marquette, 2012; Persson et al., 2010). Consequently, it is important to approach the study of corruption with an open mind in terms of defining what constitutes corruption. Individuals exist within multiple communities – religious, family, friends, colleagues, professional and personal networks, and so on. Therefore, they have to consider what all those communities believe in and accept that will affect the individual’s attitudes towards corruption. That is, religion, sadly, is not going to provide a solution to corruption. Thus, anyone researching a solution must analyse social and cultural factors to seek a solution for corruption and not expect that religion can help solve the corruption problem. Thus, any community (country) concerned about corruption must either change its cultures and social structures or accept corruption as a way of life.

Corruption is a human problem and has no national geographical boundaries, no gender, no income class, no colour, no education level, or no religious limits because it promises instant and undeserved gratification and the easy way out of difficult situations. Thus, corruption will continue and even become more widespread if no solution is found.

The writer is Ph.D. (USA), Professor Emeritus (USA)