AUG 21 — An introductory remark on corruption in a working paper of the International Monetary Fund more than 20 years ago in 1998 states as follows:
Corruption is not a new phenomenon. Two thousand years ago, Kautilya, the prime minister of an Indian King, had already written a book, Arthasashtra, discussing it.
Seven centuries ago, Dante placed bribers in the deepest part of Hell, reflecting the medieval distaste for corrupt behaviour.
Shakespeare gave corruption a prominent role in some of his plays; and the American Constitution made bribery one of two explicitly-mentioned crimes which could lead to an impeachment of a US president. (Vito Tanzi, Corruption Around the World: Causes, Consequences, Scope and Cures (1998), available here.
One may add a narration by Abdullah bin Amr that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: “May the Curse of Allah be upon the briber and the bribe recipient”. (Sunan Ibn Majah 2313, Book 13, Hadith 6) That’s more than 1,400 years ago.
Corruption has been defined in many different ways. The World Bank’s description of corruption as “the abuse of public office for private gain” has often been referred to.
But it is one that has been much criticised as well as its reference to “public office” only fails to recognise corruption in the private sector.
It is indeed an arduous task to come up with an exhaustive definition of corruption since its meaning can vary at different times in different societies. (See Rider, “Recovering the proceeds of corruption”, Journal of Money Laundering Control (2007) Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 5).
One may therefore agree that describing corruption is like describing an elephant: Different descriptions, each lacking in some aspect, but hitherto recognisable.
Call me biased, but Prophet Muhammad’s admonition of risywah — the Arabic word for bribery — puts in context what corruption entails: A giver (al-rasyi) and a taker or recipient (al-murtasyi).
Both giver and taker invoke the curse of Allah and will be sin-binned in Hell for a heinous act.
A Muslim should not be the giver nor the taker, under any circumstances. If a Muslim is not the giver, then he should not be the taker. He is forbidden to take it. The admonition against corruption is strengthened by another Hadith (tradition of the Prophet) where it was reported that Prophet Muhammad had sent a person by the name of Ibn Allatbiah to collect zakah (tax). The person came back with the zakah and some gifts and he said to the Prophet:
“[This] is the zakah and these gifts were given to me and, thus, they are mine.”
The Prophet replied:
“[W]hy does an employee who we send to collect zakah come back to say this is zakah and these are gifts given to me; would anybody have given him these gifts had he stayed in his mother’s home? By God, anyone who takes these gifts when he is on a public mission will carry its burden on the Day of Judgment.” (Bukhari and Muslim)
So, why the blame non-Muslims and non-Bumiputera for making up the bulk of the “roots of corruption” in the country?
As cartoonist Ernest Ng Thye Sern would say: “Bro, don’t like that la.”
*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
