<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>Razavi University of Islamic Sciences</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Islamic Philosophical Doctrines</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>2251-9386</Issn>
				<Volume></Volume>
				<Issue>Articles in Press</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2026</Year>
					<Month>05</Month>
					<Day>05</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Reconsidering the Pedagogical Function of Sabzavari’s Sharḥ al-Manẓūma: An Analysis Based on Divergent Educational Paradigms</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle>Reconsidering the Pedagogical Function of Sabzavari’s Sharḥ al-Manẓūma: An Analysis Based on Divergent Educational Paradigms</VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage></FirstPage>
			<LastPage></LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">2307</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.30513/ipd.2026.8226.1736</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>FA</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Hasan</FirstName>
					<LastName>Haj Reza Beigi</LastName>
<Affiliation>Department of Philosophy and Islamic Theology, Razavi University of Islamic Sciences, Mashhad, Iran</Affiliation>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2026</Year>
					<Month>02</Month>
					<Day>20</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>Islamic philosophy education in the seminary tradition has relied on texts shaping the &quot;faculty of philosophical understanding.&quot; Recently, with its shift to academia, Mullā Hādī Sabzavārī&#039;s Sharḥ al-Manẓūma has been evaluated against modern textbook criteria. Moqaddam (2023/1402), from this perspective, deems its conciseness, versified form, and linguistic complexity as causes of educational inefficacy. This study asks whether these judgments arise from the text&#039;s inherent weakness or from imposing a framework incompatible with traditional texts. Using conceptual-functional analysis and a comparative approach, it distinguishes between &quot;information-oriented&quot; (modern) and &quot;cultivation-oriented&quot; (Islamic philosophical tradition) educational models, then reinterprets Moqaddam&#039;s critiques within these frameworks. Findings indicate that features like conciseness, poetic form, mystical elements, and interdisciplinary references—deemed &quot;learning disruptors&quot; in the modern paradigm—serve an educational role in the philosophical tradition. Within the teacher-centered system, exegesis, and scholarly dialogue (mubāḥatha), they foster conceptual practice, technical language familiarity, and readiness for foundational texts like Asfār. Distinguishing &quot;inherent difficulties&quot; (from the textual tradition&#039;s logic) from &quot;accidental difficulties&quot; (from content arrangement), the article defends the former while allowing for the latter&#039;s reform. Thus, the disagreement over Sharḥ al-Manẓūma&#039;s efficacy stems from differing educational paradigms, requiring a framework that considers both the tradition&#039;s internal logic and contemporary standards for analyzing Islamic philosophical texts.</Abstract>
			<OtherAbstract Language="FA">Islamic philosophy education in the seminary tradition has relied on texts shaping the &quot;faculty of philosophical understanding.&quot; Recently, with its shift to academia, Mullā Hādī Sabzavārī&#039;s Sharḥ al-Manẓūma has been evaluated against modern textbook criteria. Moqaddam (2023/1402), from this perspective, deems its conciseness, versified form, and linguistic complexity as causes of educational inefficacy. This study asks whether these judgments arise from the text&#039;s inherent weakness or from imposing a framework incompatible with traditional texts. Using conceptual-functional analysis and a comparative approach, it distinguishes between &quot;information-oriented&quot; (modern) and &quot;cultivation-oriented&quot; (Islamic philosophical tradition) educational models, then reinterprets Moqaddam&#039;s critiques within these frameworks. Findings indicate that features like conciseness, poetic form, mystical elements, and interdisciplinary references—deemed &quot;learning disruptors&quot; in the modern paradigm—serve an educational role in the philosophical tradition. Within the teacher-centered system, exegesis, and scholarly dialogue (mubāḥatha), they foster conceptual practice, technical language familiarity, and readiness for foundational texts like Asfār. Distinguishing &quot;inherent difficulties&quot; (from the textual tradition&#039;s logic) from &quot;accidental difficulties&quot; (from content arrangement), the article defends the former while allowing for the latter&#039;s reform. Thus, the disagreement over Sharḥ al-Manẓūma&#039;s efficacy stems from differing educational paradigms, requiring a framework that considers both the tradition&#039;s internal logic and contemporary standards for analyzing Islamic philosophical texts.</OtherAbstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Sharḥ al-Manẓūma</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Mullā Hādī Sabzavārī</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">teaching Islamic philosophy</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">educational paradigm</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">cultivation-oriented text</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">desirable difficulties</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://ipd.razavi.ac.ir/article_2307_cdf2d36634cdfa7c64ced7dc161c2b7c.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
