Tawaqquf Pedagogy: Reconstructing the Regulation of Epistemic Judgement in Islamic Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Main Article Content
Abstract
The development of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) raises concerns about learners’ independence of judgement when information is accepted without sufficient evaluation of evidence or justification. This study aims to identify the epistemic structure and mechanisms of tawaqquf in classical Islamic literature and to reconstruct these into a pedagogical framework for strengthening epistemic agency in GenAI-assisted learning. Employing a two-stage qualitative approach, the study combines document analysis and conceptual theory-building based on 25 argumentative units drawn from seven classical works by six authors. The data were examined through semantic coding, cross-unit comparison and pattern analysis; the findings were then brought into dialogue with contemporary theories of educational psychology and epistemology. The findings identify six epistemic functions: Epistemic Diagnosis (ED), Evidence–Commitment Calibration (EC), Deliberate Restraint (DR), Active Resolution/Inquiry (AR), Revisability and Exit (RX), and Boundary Governance (BG). Together, these functions constitute a conditional and non-linear architecture for regulating epistemic commitment. EC is proposed as a candidate linking mechanism between the adequacy of evidence and the degree of commitment warranted by that evidence, while BG governs the conditions and limits of legitimate suspension of judgement. The reconstruction yields Tawaqquf Pedagogy and Tawaqquf-Based Epistemic Agency (TBEA), together with seven theoretical propositions for learning practices that retain learners’ responsibility for evaluation and justification. The study’s originality lies in integrating classical Islamic epistemic principles with mechanisms of evidence–commitment regulation within a contemporary pedagogical framework. However, the purposively selected corpus and the absence of empirical validation mean that its contribution remains conceptual and requires subsequent empirical investigation.
Article Details
Section

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Ahsan, A. (2026). Incompleteness of Theological Tawaqquf under Adamic Exceptionalism. Theology and Science, 24(1), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2025.2546688
al-Ghazālī, A. Ḥāmid M. ibn M. (1993). al-Mustaṣfā min ʿIlm al-Uṣūl (Ḥamzah ibn Zuhayr Ḥāfiẓ (ed.); Vol. 4).
al-Juwaynī, ʿAbd al-Malik ibn ʿAbd Allāh. (1997). al-Burhān fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh (Ṣalāḥ ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿUwayḍah (ed.); 1st ed., Vol. 2). Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
al-Rāzī, F. al-D. M. ibn ʿUmar. (1981). Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb (al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr) (Vol. 32). Dār al-Fikr.
al-Rāzī, F. al-D. M. ibn ʿUmar. (1992). al-Maḥṣūl fī ʿIlm Uṣūl al-Fiqh (Ṭāhā Jābir Fayyāḍ al-ʿAlwānī (ed.); Vol. 6). Muʾassasat al-Risālah.
al-Shāfiʿī, M. ibn I. (1986). Ikhtilāf al-Ḥadīth (M. A. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (ed.); 1st ed.). Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
al-Shāṭibī. (1997). Al-Muwāfaqāt (A. ʿUbaydah M. ibn Ḥasan Ā. Salmān (ed.)). Dār Ibn ʿAffān.
Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 122(26), e2422633122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122
Bielik, T., & Krell, M. (2025). Developing and evaluating the extended epistemic vigilance framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 62(3), 869–895. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21983
Bigliardi, S. (2025). Tawaqquf and Adamic Exceptionalism: Silver Bullet or Optical Illusion? Theology and Science, 23(2), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2025.2472126
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Chen, S., & Cheung, A. C. K. (2025). Effect of generative artificial intelligence on university students learning outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 49, 100737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100737
Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025). Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Computers & Education, 227, 105224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224
Du, Y., & Yuan, Y. (2026). Epistemic dependence in AI-mediated learning. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03294-1
Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X., & Gašević, D. (2025). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 489–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Hou, C., Zhu, G., & Sudarshan, V. (2025). The role of critical thinking on undergraduates’ reliance behaviours on generative AI in problem-solving. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56, 1919–1941. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13613
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Lan, M., & Zhou, X. (2025). A qualitative systematic review on AI empowered self-regulated learning in higher education. Npj Science of Learning, 10, 21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00319-0
Lane, J. (2021). If Adorno Met Intersectionality Theory: Reconceiving the Method of Negative Case Analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211045473
Liu, Y., Jou, M., & Hao, Y. (2026). From cognitive offloading to learning accountability erosion: How generative AI reshapes students’ epistemic trust and educational engagement. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2026.2680276
Malik, S. A. (2026). Human Evolution and Islam: Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and the Origins of Language. Theology and Science, 24(2), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2026.2637214
Nakamura, D. (2026). Augmentation or Erosion? Regulating Cognitive Offloading in Generative AI-Supported STEM Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 38, 124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10224-6
Nieminen, J. H., & Ketonen, L. (2024). Epistemic agency: A link between assessment, knowledge and society. Higher Education, 88, 777–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01142-5
Qutaybah, I. (1999). Taʾwīl mukhtalif al-ḥadīth (M. M. al-D. al-Aṣfar (ed.)). al-Maktab al-Islāmī.
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive Offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
Sale, J. E. M. (2022). The role of analytic direction in qualitative research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01546-4
Sankofa, N. (2023). Critical method of document analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 26(6), 745–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2022.2113664
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x
Tanchuk, N. J., & Taylor, R. M. (2025). Personalized Learning with AI Tutors: Assessing and Advancing Epistemic Trustworthiness. Educational Theory, 75(2), 327–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.70009
van Hulst, M., & Visser, E. L. (2025). Abductive analysis in qualitative research. Public Administration Review, 85(2), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13856
Vila-Henninger, L., Dupuy, C., Van Ingelgom, V., Caprioli, M., Teuber, F., Pennetreau, D., Bussi, M., & Le Gall, C. (2024). Abductive Coding: Theory Building and Qualitative (Re)Analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 53(2), 968–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241211067508
Vollmer, M. (2024). Suspension of Judgement: Fittingness, Reasons, and Permissivism. Episteme, 21(4), 1389–1404. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2023.34
Wu, J.-Y., Lee, Y.-H., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2025). Strengthening Human Epistemic Agency in the Symbiotic Learning Partnership With Generative Artificial Intelligence. Educational Researcher, 54(6), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X251333628
Xu, X., Qiao, L., Cheng, N., Liu, H., & Zhao, W. (2025). Enhancing self-regulated learning and learning experience in generative AI environments: The critical role of metacognitive support. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56, 1842–1863. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13599
Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024). The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students’ cognitive abilities: A systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 11, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15430421TIP4102_2