Critical Analysis of Prominent Views on Religious Language as a Tool for the Evolution of a Deep Understanding of Religion

Today, religious language has been analyzed from various perspectives. Following the Islamic Revolution, due to the growing sense of need for religion, the deep understanding (tafaqquh) of religion with an evolutionary approach became a necessity. Religious language, as the tool and means of communication with the Legislator (Shāriʿ), is recognized as one of the most important instruments for developing the logic of deduction from religious texts. The study of religious language has long been prevalent among specific groups of scholars, including jurists (fuqahāʾ), theorists of the principles of jurisprudence (uṣūliyyūn), theologians (mutakallimūn), Quranic exegetes, and mystics (ʿurafāʾ), and has been evaluated from different angles over the years. The present article, with the approach of elevating discussions on religious language to enhance the level of understanding and communion with the Legislator, examines the prominent views on religious language. Its objectives are, on one hand, to clarify and delineate the approaches to religious language and to demonstrate the capacity of each in understanding and communicating with the Legislator; and on the other hand, by identifying the various ideas and perspectives in this field and analyzing them, to arrive at the preliminaries and elements for optimizing religious language. Thus, the fundamental concept of the present article is religious language. Religious language is the language of revelation, through which the message of the Legislator has been delivered to us. Accordingly, religious language—also known as the language of the Legislator—in this article is broader than the language of the Quran and includes hadith as well. In other words, it encompasses the entirety of revelatory propositions transmitted from Almighty God, the Prophet, and the 
Imams in the form of the Quran, hadiths, and supplications to humanity. On this basis, religious language is the language of religious propositions, and approaches to religious language influence our understanding of it and constitute one of the theoretical foundations of religious comprehension. The main question now is: To what extent are the prominent views on the language of religion effective in advancing deduction from religious sources? The significance of the present research lies in the fact that new views on the language of sacred texts—known in the West as hermeneutics—have led to the rejection of positivist outlooks and the acceptance of relativity in understanding. If an appropriate response is not provided in relation to Islamic revelatory texts, this could result in passivity and, consequently, the marginalization of religion under the label of inefficiency. Furthermore, influencing the culture and structures of a society requires intervention in language; and to intervene in the subject of language, in addition to general knowledge, a comprehensive definition of religious language must be offered, along with recognition of its constituent elements and the interconnections among them. With this approach, the relationship of other domains—such as the influence of theological foundations on the understanding of religious language—also becomes evident.




90                                                                       Studies of Qur̓anic Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025




In the present article, the description and analysis of prominent views among various scholars—including uṣūliyyūn, akhbāriyyūn, mystics, and linguists—regarding religious language have been reported and evaluated. Then, relying on the principles of religious ijtihad, linguistic criteria and elements for the evolutionary understanding of religion are presented, including the elevation of the logic of deduction, the incorporation of theological foundations in understanding language, the development of a view from social to historical dimensions of religious language, an evolutionary and constructive perspective on religious language, and so forth. Based on the findings of this research:

Various views have offered a limited interpretation of religious language. Jurists and uṣūliyyūn have confined the language of the Legislator to the time of the initial addressees; akhbāriyyūn have restricted it to specific individuals, namely the infallible ones; mystics have limited the subject of the Legislator’s language to spiritual purposes; and finally, linguists, by prioritizing material evolution, have overlooked the Legislator and interpreted linguistic evolution as limited to material needs.
Uṣūliyyūn trace the basis of the Legislator’s communication back to the common sense (ʿurf ʿāmm) of the time of initial address and consider religious language to be the language of common sense, attributing the basis of authority to the Legislator’s endorsement. This conception lacks the capacity to analyze levels of address throughout history and is incapable of adequately responding to new issues that arise over time or managing them.
Akhbāriyyūn regard religious language as particular sense (ʿurf khāṣṣ) and consider its addressees to be only the Prophet and the Imams. This view, by denying the Legislator’s communication to the common sense, effectively closes the channel of communication and proof with the general public, leading to the passivity of religion in responding to new needs.

4. Mystics consider the true addressee of the Legislator to be human intellect and present communion with the Legislator as dependent on individuals’ degrees of intellect, affirming levels of address. They recognize at least two levels—general and particular—for 
the Quran. In this view, the basis of authority returns to certainty (yaqīn). Among its shortcomings are the lack of systematization of the influence of faith on understanding and the restriction of religion’s scope to spiritual matters.




Critical Analysis of Prominent Views on …                                                                                                             91





Linguists, based on the evolution of material needs, advocate evolution and pluralism in understanding the religious language. This theory, by accepting pluralism without providing criteria or standards, is unable to prove the validity of plural interpretations. Moreover, in this view, the dominance of material evolution over theoretical evolution is accepted, whereas the evolution of faith leads to the evolution of communication with the Legislator.
Linguistic criteria that can lead to evolutionary understanding include: elevating the logic of deduction and deep understanding; incorporating theological foundations into discussions of religious language; adopting a social and historical view of language; attending to all needs; determining direction in linguistic analysis; attention to all levels of understanding; and the constructive (taʾsīsī) nature of religious language.