The issue of language and its relationship with thought and existence has long been one of the most fundamental concerns of human thought. This concept also plays a fundamental role in the processes of conceptualization and ideation in the field of architecture. The analogy between architecture and language is one of the prominent theories in this field that has been used in the theoretical and practical dimensions of architecture, especially in the history of Western thought, simultaneously with the developments in the philosophy of language. The aim of this article is to present a comparative study between Western and Islamic approaches to the relationship between architecture and language, focusing on the duality of "word/form" and "meaning". This research aims to reveal the fundamental distinctions of Islamic thought in this field and to demonstrate the importance of recognizing the capacities of Islamic wisdom, especially the "science of rhetoric", for formulating the foundations of a dynamic and meaningful Islamic architecture.
The Evolution of the Analogy of Language and Architecture in Western Thought:
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 and reduced 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 view was in line with the philosophy of modern language, especially Wittgenstein's pictorial theory, which considered language a reflection of the logical structure of the world. The result was international architecture with the standardization of spaces and the dominance of engineering over art.
Postmodernism was a reaction to this uniformity. Inverting the slogan of the modernists, it considered form as the content of architecture and turned to pluralism, complexity, and contradiction. Theories of structuralism and semiotics were used to analyze meaning in architecture. Philosophers such as Heidegger and the later Wittgenstein also redefined the relationship between language and architecture: language is not a human tool, but the "house of being," and meaning is formed in the context of life. These ideas freed architecture from the shackles of uniformity and led it towards polysemy.

The Place of Language, Form, and Meaning in Islamic Wisdom
In contrast to this evolution, Islamic thought is based on a different 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, with the belief that these forms have an inherent sanctity and authenticity to 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. This perspective, rooted in the mysticism and wisdom of Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra, allows the architect to use existing materials and forms to manifest transcendent meanings in a context appropriate to his time and place, and to achieve a dynamic and authentic Islamic architecture.

Discussion and Conclusion: The Need to Revive Islamic Rhetoric in Architecture
This essay has sought to employ the concept of “language” in its broad philosophical sense as a unifying framework for studying and analyzing the intellectual foundations of Islamic architecture in comparison with the Western modes of thought that have shaped Western and Westernized architectural traditions. By reviewing each intellectual tradition independently, the study has demonstrated a close theoretical and practical correspondence between Western approaches to language and their architectural manifestations.
In the Western tradition, the analogy between architecture and language emerged initially through the application of rhetoric as a means of establishing an aesthetic basis for the formulation and evaluation of 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 subsequent 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 theoretical discussion can also be identified within Islamic thought, particularly in relation to concepts of language, meaning, and their relevance to Islamic architecture, as referenced in this article. Nevertheless, this correspondence is far less evident in the practical output of contemporary architecture in the Islamic world. While the architecture–language analogy has been extensively articulated and historically reflected in Western architectural discourse and practice, a comparable conceptual framework is difficult to identify in discussions of traditional Islamic architecture. Even more problematic is the attempt to trace such a relationship in what is commonly labeled “contemporary Islamic architecture” across the Islamic world, which is largely shaped by modern or postmodern architectural paradigms.
The primary reason for this disjunction lies in the fact that many contemporary architectural works merely appropriate so-called Islamic forms, elements, and patterns while employing Western approaches to form, meaning, and representation. As a result, such architectures cannot genuinely be described as Islamic if “Islamic” is defined in terms of the essential intellectual and spiritual principles of Islam rather than surface-level formal references. If architecture is to convey Islamic meanings in a substantive sense, it must be grounded in rhetorical and conceptual foundations derived from Islamic culture itself. Such grounding is essential for architecture to be both authentically “Islamic” and responsive to its historical moment, as well as to the social, cultural, and technical conditions and opportunities of its time.
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.