Moral vocabulary still shapes public leadership, even in supposedly secular political cultures

 

When King Charles III recently invoked the Book of Isaiah in a major public address, the moment drew attention not because scripture appeared in political speech, but because of the ease with which moral language entered public life without apology. Quoting the familiar passage, “they shall beat their swords into ploughshares”, the King framed anxieties about war, instability, and international responsibility within a wider ethical tradition.

What stood out was not the biblical quotation itself. Western leaders have long drawn on sacred texts. Abraham Lincoln repeatedly cited the Bible during the American Civil War. Winston Churchill invoked Christian moral resistance during the Second World War. Mahatma Gandhi’s political philosophy was inseparable from the Bhagavad Gita. Nelson Mandela often spoke in moral terms about reconciliation, dignity, and forgiveness during South Africa’s democratic transition.

The idea that ethical vocabulary should be banished from public leadership is historically invalid.

Ironically, many Western leaders appear more comfortable drawing from religious traditions in public life than many Muslims themselves

Modern politics often swings between two unsatisfying extremes. On one side lies a rigid secularism that treats religious language as inherently suspect in public life. On the other lies performative religiosity, where sacred texts are reduced to slogans emptied of intellectual seriousness. Neither produces thoughtful public discourse.

What Charles demonstrated was something more restrained and more useful: the use of inherited moral language to elevate political discussion beyond immediate partisan calculation.

That distinction matters, particularly in Muslim societies where educated elites often hesitate to engage openly with their own ethical traditions. In Bangladesh, references to the Qur’an and Sunnah in discussions about governance, leadership, or public ethics are frequently treated with unnecessary caution, as though moral insight drawn from Islamic sources automatically amounts to sectarian preaching.

This hesitation is striking because Islamic civilisation produced one of history’s richest traditions of ethical statecraft. Muslim scholars wrote extensively about justice, accountability, diplomacy, trade, warfare, and public welfare centuries before many modern political theories emerged.

The Qur’an is not merely a devotional text. It repeatedly addresses justice, consultation, trust, restraint, honesty in trade, and the ethical exercise of power. Likewise, the Sunnah contains profound lessons in leadership, negotiation, institutional responsibility and social cohesion.

None of this means religion should dominate politics or replace democratic institutions. The real issue is not whether moral language enters public life, because it always does in one form or another. The issue is how it enters.

Sacred language used to inflame division degrades both religion and politics. Used responsibly, it can deepen public life by reminding societies that not everything can be reduced to economics, bureaucracy, or electoral arithmetic.

Bangladesh stands at a difficult moment. Economically, it has made remarkable progress. Geopolitically, it occupies an increasingly important position in the Indo-Pacific. Yet public discourse often feels trapped between hyper-partisanship, institutional distrust, and shallow political performance.

King Charles’s speech mattered not because it was religious, but because it showed that moral language still has a place in public leadership

In such an environment, moral vocabulary shrinks. Politics becomes transactional. Public debate turns reactive rather than reflective.

Yet many Islamic ethical concepts remain directly relevant to modern civic life. The Qur’anic emphasis on amanah, or trust, speaks clearly to public accountability. Adl, meaning justice, relates directly to governance and the rule of law. Shura, or consultation, reinforces participatory decision making. Ihsan, meaning excellence, aligns closely with professional ethics and institutional integrity.

These are not abstract theological ideas. They are ethical principles with practical social relevance.

Ironically, many Western leaders appear more comfortable drawing from religious traditions in public life than many Muslims themselves. American presidents routinely conclude speeches with “God bless America”. European leaders openly reference Judeo-Christian values. Yet when Muslims invoke the Qur’an in discussions about ethics or governance, suspicion often follows, either from secularists who fear religion or extremists who seek to monopolise it.

Both reactions are unhealthy.

A mature society should be able to distinguish between ethical inspiration and political exploitation. The challenge for Muslim intellectuals is not to abandon religious vocabulary, but to use it responsibly, connect it to universal concerns, and demonstrate that Islamic ethical traditions are compatible with pluralism, professionalism, and modern democratic life.

That requires intellectual seriousness rather than rhetorical performance. It also requires confidence.

Civilisations decline not only when they lose power, but when they lose confidence in their moral and intellectual traditions. Across parts of the modern Muslim world, many educated Muslims have become defensive about their civilisational inheritance, either reducing religion to ritual alone or excluding it from elite discourse altogether.

Yet ethical traditions survive only when they remain intellectually alive.

King Charles’s speech mattered not because it was religious, but because it showed that moral language still has a place in public leadership. In an era shaped increasingly by transactional politics and ideological fatigue, societies continue to seek ethical frameworks beyond power and economics alone.

For Muslims, the Qur’an and Sunnah should not exist only within private spirituality or ceremonial life. Their ethical insights can also inform how citizens think about justice, leadership, education, responsibility, and national purpose. Not coercively. Not performatively. But thoughtfully, confidently, and with moral seriousness.

This is an opinion piece. Views are personal

 

Writer: Commodore Syed Misbah Uddin Ahmad, (C), NUP, ndc, afwc, psc, BN (retd), Director General, Bangladesh Institute of Maritime Research and Development (BIMRAD). Email: misbah28686@gmail.com