The analogy of architecture and language in the West has historical roots. Vitruvius considered architecture to be related to language and interpreted it as an attempt to restore natural harmony after the fall of man. In the pre-modern era, this analogy was formed under the concept of "rhetoric"; architecture, like oratory, was obliged to "express" and was evaluated based on the principles of eloquence. The Renaissance, with the concept of "decorum" (the appropriateness of form and meaning), took this idea to its peak and laid the foundations of classicism. However, this view remained limited to the more dramatic and structural aspects, reducing architecture to a tool for displaying social status.
Modernism transformed this approach. Architects such as Gropius and Sullivan, with the slogan "form follows function," sought a universal and rational language based on technology and functionalism. Decoration was considered superfluous, and simplicity of form became an absolute value. This perspective aligned with modern linguistic philosophy, particularly Wittgenstein's picture theory, which viewed language as mirroring the world's logical structure. International architecture thus favored standardized spaces and engineering over artistic expression.
Postmodernism arises as a critique of modernism’s pursuit of uniform, “universal” truths through functionalism. Rather than treating architecture as a purely technical solution, postmodernism insists that form and meaning are inseparable: buildings operate like sign systems whose references depend on context. Drawing on structuralism and semiotics, it reads architectural features as producing meaning through codes and relationships, not fixed essence.
Philosophically, this aligns with the idea that language shapes what can be meaningfully said or experienced—so meaning is not simply “labeled” but emerges from lived context (with affinities to Heidegger and later Wittgenstein). The result is an architectural stance toward pluralism, complexity, contradiction, and ultimately polysemy—openness to multiple, competing interpretations rather than one authoritative message.
 
The Place of Language, Form, and Meaning in Islamic Wisdom
Conversely, Islamic thought stems from a distinct worldview. In Islamic philosophy, the world has levels of existence (lahut, malakut, and nasut). The material world (nasut) is the manifestation and sign (ayah) of truths that exist in higher worlds (malakut). Accordingly, meaning is something that already exists and must be “discovered,” not “produced.” The “spirit of meaning” theory, advanced by thinkers such as al-Ghazali, Mulla Sadra, and Allameh Tabatabaei, states that words are meant to represent the spirit and truth, and their application to tangible matters is figurative. This view justifies the use of simile, interpretation, and metaphor to move from the tangible to the intelligible. This worldview is also reflected in Islamic architecture. In this view, form (zahir) is a container for the manifestation of meaning (batin), and meaning transcends form, but it is form that makes meaning communicable. Islamic art is often defined in terms of a “descending course” of existence (from unity to plurality), in which the artist, like a mirror, reflects the eternal beauty and truth. This approach leads to the repetition of traditional forms and patterns, believing these forms authentically reflect Islamic principles.
However, this approach faces challenges in responding to the needs of contemporary architecture. In contrast, an “ascending course” of existence (from plurality to unity) can also be emphasized, in which the role of the artist’s will and creativity in transforming the environment to return to the original is highlighted. Drawing on Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra, architects can create dynamic and authentic Islamic architecture by employing existing materials and forms to manifest transcendent meanings relevant to their context.
Discussion and Conclusion: The Need to Revive Islamic Rhetoric in Architecture
This essay applies “language” as a broad philosophical framework to compare the intellectual foundations of Islamic architecture with the Western modes of thought that have shaped Western (and Westernized) architectural traditions. Studying each tradition independently, it demonstrates a close theoretical and practical correspondence between Western approaches to language and their architectural manifestations.
The Western tradition established an analogy between architecture and language by using rhetoric to create an aesthetic foundation for architectural design. Within this framework, the treatment of meaning followed the rhetorical concept of decorum—understood as the appropriateness or fitness of form to purpose and meaning—and its ensuing adoption by architectural theorists. However, rather than developing as a symbolic or meaning-centered enterprise, this linguistic analogy gradually reduced architecture to a form of eloquence aimed primarily at expressing status, propriety, and social order. In this respect, architecture came to mirror the Western rhetorical tradition itself, which was likewise narrowed to a primarily persuasive function.
A parallel debate can be found in Islamic thought—especially around language, meaning, and their bearing on Islamic architecture. However, this link is much less visible in the actual practice of contemporary architecture in the Islamic world. In Western discourse, the architecture–language analogy has been clearly developed and long reflected in built work, but a comparable framework is harder to locate in scholarship or interpretation of traditional Islamic architecture. The situation becomes even more uncertain when trying to apply this relationship to “contemporary Islamic architecture,” which often follows modern or postmodern design paradigms rather than a distinctly language-based tradition.
The key argument is that many contemporary architectural works in the Islamic world merely apply Islamic forms superficially but are underpinned by Western concepts of form, meaning, and representation. Consequently, these works fall short of being genuinely Islamic if "Islamic" is not defined by essential intellectual and spiritual principles, and only by the apparent forms. Authentic Islamic architecture must be rooted in rhetorical and conceptual foundations intrinsic to Islamic culture to produce works that convey meaning and identity while meeting contemporary needs.
This article, therefore, argues that much of contemporary architecture in the Islamic world has distanced itself from its philosophical and intellectual roots by imitating Western architectural styles without a critical engagement with their underlying theoretical premises. To create architecture that is simultaneously “Islamic” and responsive to contemporary realities, it is necessary to return to the foundational principles of Islamic wisdom. The proposed approach is the revival of the analogy between architecture and rhetoric, grounded in the rhetorical theories articulated by Muslim thinkers—most notably ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī. Jurjānī’s theory emphasizes the centrality of artistic intention, cultural context, and the intelligent and meaningful composition of elements in the production of meaning. Drawing inspiration from this perspective can contribute to the formation of a renewed architectural language—one capable of preserving identity and spiritual depth while engaging dynamically with changing conditions—thereby achieving a meaningful unity between authenticity, identity, and dynamism.