Family governance in Iran has for decades oscillated between the fluidity of social demands and the rigidity of law. Departing from purely jurisprudential explanations, the present study seeks to analyze the role of "language" as the underlying cause of this blockage. The main objective is to explain how the gendered syntactic structure of the source language (Arabic), through translation, imposes itself upon the neutral target language (Persian), resulting in a legal system that has lost its regulatory function and become a source of anxiety.

This research employs a library-based method and documentary analysis. In the comparative section, the process of legal reforms in Iran is compared with those of Tunisia and Morocco. The theoretical framework draws on the occurrence of understanding within the horizon of language, based on the ideas of Heidegger and Gadamer, as well as Robert Phillipson's theory of linguistic imperialism and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity.

The findings indicate that the congruence of language, culture, jurisprudence, and law in Arabic-speaking countries such as Tunisia and Morocco has made it possible to overcome the legal crisis of the family through linguistic change and the liberation of linguistic interpretation. In Iran, however, the disjunction between the language of jurisprudence and the language of law, on the one hand, and the dominance of the syntactic structure of Arabic as the "language of God," on the other, have hindered legal fluidity. This constitutes a functional blockage within the egalitarian grammar of the Persian language.