This dissertation examines the relationship between sacred language and public political practice within the framework of Islamic governance. Drawing on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s reflections on language, meaning, and language-games, it explores the hidden tensions and contradictions that emerge when religious discourse becomes rigid and institutionalized. The central claim is that in contemporary Iran, an excessive emphasis on stabilizing and formalizing religious language—without sufficient consideration for social plurality and ongoing transformations—has led to the proliferation of conflicting and parallel language-games. This dynamic not only undermines the effectiveness of public policy but also erodes the social contract grounded in a shared linguistic framework.



The study first outlines Wittgenstein’s theoretical contributions and evaluates their strengths and limitations in analyzing religious discourse and governance. It argues that religious language in politics functions not merely as a tool of communication, but as a contested arena of power, legitimacy, and identity. Drawing on cases such as demographic policies, family law, legislation on youth and population growth, and the principle of expediency, it demonstrates how the gap between official discourse and everyday language fosters irony, satire, neologisms, and reinterpretations.



Finally, the dissertation proposes practical strategies for rethinking the religious lexicon of policymaking, including the simplification of juristic–legal language, the establishment of institutionalized dialogue, and the removal of systematic silences in political discourse.