University of Tehran Press Philosophy of Religion 2008-7063 11 3 2014 10 23 Three Theories in Religious Language and Six Quran Commentators Three Theories in Religious Language and Six Quran Commentators 393 428 52842 10.22059/jpht.2014.52842 FA Mirsaeid Mousavi Karimi Mofid University Hamideh Tehrani Haeri Journal Article 2014 05 24 The purpose of this paper is to investigate the views of six Qur’an commentators, with different backgrounds, i.e., Tabresi, Zamakhshari, Fakhr Razi, Meybodi, and Tabatabaei, in order to find which one the three theories in religious language, I.e., equivocalism, univocalism, and analogous language is more consistent with their comments on Quran. To reach this aim, first, the three theories in religious language will be discussed. Then, the commentaries of the six commentators on some verses of Quran will be explained. It will be shown that all these commentators are least interested in equivocalism, whereas univocalism, and then the theory of analogous language are the most favorable views. Moreover, those with Sufistic background are more interested in equivocalism, whereas a Shies’ commentator, Tabatabaei, is not on the side of this theory. Finally, it can be said that the theory of analogous language can be a common view among all commentators with different, and sometimes, opposite backgrounds, and this another advantages for this theory. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the views of six Qur’an commentators, with different backgrounds, i.e., Tabresi, Zamakhshari, Fakhr Razi, Meybodi, and Tabatabaei, in order to find which one the three theories in religious language, I.e., equivocalism, univocalism, and analogous language is more consistent with their comments on Quran. To reach this aim, first, the three theories in religious language will be discussed. Then, the commentaries of the six commentators on some verses of Quran will be explained. It will be shown that all these commentators are least interested in equivocalism, whereas univocalism, and then the theory of analogous language are the most favorable views. Moreover, those with Sufistic background are more interested in equivocalism, whereas a Shies’ commentator, Tabatabaei, is not on the side of this theory. Finally, it can be said that the theory of analogous language can be a common view among all commentators with different, and sometimes, opposite backgrounds, and this another advantages for this theory. https://jpht.ut.ac.ir/article_52842_c4318184cfef0a4961204b9c70cb8f73.pdf