Explanation and Critique of a Founder's Educational Theory: Ali Asghar Karbaschian - Founder of Elitist Islamic Schools

Using an explanatory–analytical method and relying on documentary sources, this article seeks to explicate and critically examine Karbaschian’s educational theory. In explaining this theory, the foundations and components of Karbaschian’s educational framework are analyzed. The epistemology of this theory is grounded in religious–philosophical knowledge, empirical sciences, social experiences, and interpretations derived from his teachers. Its ontology is based on belief in causality, origin and resurrection, and the immortality of the soul, and it places greater emphasis on moral values derived from religion than on rational–religious values. These three dimensions are primarily reflected in the moral–religious culture and content of school education.

In its anthropology, belief in the innate differences among human beings in terms of talent and educability, the principle of nafye sabīl(not acceptance of unbelievers domination) as a social foundation in determining goals, and the priority of education over preaching in guiding audiences constitute the core of Karbaschian’s educational approach. The components of this theory include viewing education as the most important social action; prioritizing adolescents for education; the precedence of education (school) over preaching (pulpit); limiting education to the talented rather than the general public; considering comprehensiveness as a necessary condition of schooling; and adopting geometric progression as a method for increasing the number of cultivated talented individuals.

these components are not derived directly from religious texts and the teachings of scholars but rather reflect Karbaschian’s personal views; his arguments for certain elements of the theory—especially the restriction of education to the talented—are insufficient and are based on an analogy that equates the limited capacity of human beings with that of plants such as trees; the replacement of audience selection with content selection (the latter being emphasized in religious texts); the internal inconsistency among some of the theoretical foundations; and the challenge of deviation from educational justice