The Unity of Truth and the Multiplicity of Forms in Sacred Architecture: A Comparative Analysis of Islamic Abstraction and Christian Iconicity within the Framework of the Traditionalist School

Abstract

Sacred architecture in religious traditions is not merely a response to ritual requirements or a product of historical and stylistic developments; rather, it reflects the manner in which each tradition understands the relationship between God, the cosmos, and the human being. The central problem of this study is how sacred truth, despite its essential unity within the Traditionalist interpretation, has manifested itself in Islamic and Christian architecture through two distinct formal languages: abstraction and iconicity. This study seeks to elucidate the relationship among metaphysical foundations, theological principles, and architectural form on the basis of the ideas of thinkers associated with the Traditionalist School, including René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon, Titus Burckhardt, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. The research employs a descriptive-analytical method with a philosophical-comparative approach, while the data were collected through library research and the conceptual analysis of relevant sources. The scope of the study is limited to traditional premodern architecture, with particular emphasis on classical congregational mosques and Byzantine, Romanesque, and Gothic churches. The comparative analysis is structured around four components: “metaphysical truth,” “theological principle,” “symbolic language,” and “architectural form.” The findings demonstrate that, within the Traditionalist framework, the distinction between Islamic abstraction and Christian iconicity does not represent a conflict between two aesthetic systems; rather, it results from two different modes through which sacred truth is manifested, grounded respectively in the theological principles of divine transcendence and the Incarnation. Accordingly, the principal contribution of this article is the development of a conceptual model for explaining the relationship among metaphysical truth, theology, symbolic language, and architectural form. This model demonstrates that the unity of truth does not necessarily entail the unity of form; instead, within different religious traditions, the same transcendent truth may be actualized through distinct symbolic languages.