this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
372 points (99.2% liked)
History Memes
2064 readers
1529 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
-
History referenced must be 20+ years old.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:
- !historymusic@quokk.au
- !historygallery@quokk.au
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
- !historyphotos@piefed.social
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean... It was actually a mosque focused on religious education when it was founded. It didn't become a an accredited university until the 20th century, but I mean I guess we can move the goal posts some more if we want.
... do you not understand how other modern universities started?
... accrediation for universities weren't a thing until the 19th century, so I don't know what you expect that proves?
You're jousting at windmills.
You’re not actually addressing the core point.
Yes, actually I do. Many universities evolved out of religious institutions. That’s exactly the point. Being founded as a religious school doesn’t automatically make something equivalent to what we now define as a university. Institutions like University of Oxford developed into degree-granting, corporately structured institutions with recognized faculties, charters, and governance systems. Simply saying “others started religious too” skips over the structural differences that define a university.
Accreditation in the modern sense didn’t exist, sure. But formal recognition, charters, and institutional frameworks absolutely did. Medieval universities operated under papal bulls, royal charters, or legal privileges that formally established them as universities. So the absence of modern accreditation doesn’t mean there were no standards or distinctions at all. The question isn’t “was there 19th-century accreditation?” it’s whether the institution functioned as a university in the historical sense of the term.
Calling that “moving the goalposts” doesn’t make it so. It’s clarifying definitions.
And as for “tilting at windmills” that only works if the argument being challenged doesn’t exist. This at its core is a disagreement about classification and historical continuity. That isn't imaginary it’s a definitional and historical debate.
If you want to argue it qualifies as a university from inception, then please make the case based on the structure, curriculum, governance, and recognition not just origin story comparisons.
This is your objection, here:
What's the difference between a Christian institution founded for the purpose of the scholastic study of theology and a Muslim one, other than cultural chauvinism?
And you think... Al-Qarawiyyin didn't until, what, the White Man came and Civilized Morocco in the 1960s? Because that's what you're saying when you object to Al-Qarawiyyin's existence as a university until accreditation in the 20th century AD. I guess the diplomas dating back to the early 13th century AD are just a liberal hoax.
So the pre-20th century formal recognition and institutional frameworks of al-Qarawiyyin don't get recognition, but all the pre-19th century institutions of European universities do. How very... convenient.
Funny then that your historical sense of the term university excludes an institution of higher learning with formal recognition, charters, and institutional frameworks, which granted degrees to graduates. But I guess they had a charter from a MUSLIM polity, which was illegitimate; only Christian polities can grant REAL charters. /s
You utter dipshit, you're the one who said "moving the goalposts" I made no such accusation.
Fuck's sake. Can you not keep your own thoughts in order for a single fucking comment?
Holy fucking shit, that's not what tilting at windmills means in this context.
Tilting at windmills as in attacking an argument that has not actually been presented, not that does not exist in the fucking abstract.
You’re arguing against things I didn’t say, and then attributing motives I never expressed.
First, this has nothing to do with Christianity vs. Islam, or “civilizing” narratives. That framing is rhetorical escalation, not argument. The question isn’t whether a Muslim polity can grant a “real” charter. Of course it can. The question is whether the institutional structure at the time matches the historical definition of a university as that term is used by historians.
There’s a difference between:
European medieval universities weren’t considered universities merely because they were Christian. They were recognized as such because they developed specific institutional characteristics: legal corporate identity, degree hierarchies (bachelor, master, doctor), cross-disciplinary faculties, and recognized privileges.
If you’re arguing that University of al-Qarawiyyin met those same structural criteria prior to the 20th century, then make that case clearly. Point to its governance model, faculty structure, degree system, and legal status in comparable terms. That’s a historical comparison, not cultural chauvinism.
The existence of diplomas in the 13th century is evidence of credentialing, yes. But credentialing alone does not automatically equal “university” in the specific medieval European sense. Many institutions granted ijazahs (teaching licenses) without being structured as universities in the corporate sense used in Latin Christendom. That’s a structural distinction, not a civilizational hierarchy.
Also, I didn’t accuse you of moving the goalposts in this exchange, I was clarifying it, so correcting me for something I didn’t say is ironic given the complaint about “tilting at windmills.”
As for that phrase: in modern usage, “tilting at windmills” generally means attacking a perceived opponent or mischaracterized position. If you think I mischaracterized your argument, say that directly. But redefining the idiom mid-rant doesn’t strengthen your case.
Strip away the sarcasm and insults, and the real issue is definitional:
Are we using “university” in a broad sense meaning “any advanced institution of higher learning,” or in the narrower historical sense tied to specific medieval corporate structures?
That’s the disagreement. It isn’t about religion. It isn’t about legitimacy of Muslim polities. It’s about institutional classification.
If we can’t keep it at that level, then we’re not debating history, we’re trading accusations.
No, I'm arguing against the things you necessarily implied with what you said, and then extrapolating them to their logical, if absurd, conclusions.
Oh, so in that fucking case, would you like to withdraw your previous objection about the university not being accredited until the 20th century, when a suitably European accreditation was offered in recognition?
Your original argument was that it was originally a religious institution, and that it was not accredited until the 20th century. That very clearly is a statement dismissing the notion of al-Qarawiyyin as a university before that.
Your assertion necessarily includes, then, that al-Qarawiyyin does not meet those criteria before the 20th century, when even a cursory search of the subject disproves that absurdity.
Okay, congratulations! Now would you like to tell me why you recognize European corporate self-governing institutes of higher learning with multiple faculties and degree structures, but not North African Muslim ones?
I'm not talking about teaching licenses. But I'm sure you'll find another reason under the justification of 'Latin Christendom' to change your argument.
This you? Either you're unable to read, unable to write coherently, or unable to remember what you said.
Holy fucking shit
What the ever-loving fuck do you think
"Tilting at windmills as in attacking an argument that has not actually been presented, not that does not exist in the fucking abstract."
means?
Please, show me your level of reading comprehension here. What does that quote, from me, mean?
Oh, I thought we were discussing degree-granting, corporately structured institutions with recognized faculties, charters, and governance systems. Now it is a specific medieval (and, as you clearly say above, medieval Latin Christendom) instutition? How convenient that now that it's become apparent that al-Qarawiyyin has a legitimate educational history before the 20th century, you change your definitions again.
Religion and prejudices affect how people see institutions and classifications. Quite clearly, since you're bending backwards to dismiss al-Qarawiyyin from the category of 'university' before the White Man recognized it despite its long history as a degree-granting, corporately structured institution with recognized faculties, charters, and governance systems.
Go ahead. Make your next reply. I'm sure in this one you'll forget what you said, accuse me of saying things that you said, display a lack of reading comprehension, and then proffer three different new definitions that you can play Motte-and-Bailey with. You know, just like your last reply.
You’re still treating disagreement over classification as if it must stem from prejudice. That leap is doing most of the rhetorical work here.
Let’s slow this down.
My original point referenced two things:
Its founding as a mosque-centered institution of religious learning
Its formal modern accreditation occurring in the 20th century
Neither of those statements automatically equals “therefore it wasn’t legitimate before Europeans approved it.” That’s an inference you’re adding.
You accuse me of shifting definitions, but the definition has actually been consistent: a university in the historical sense is a corporate, self-governing body of scholars with juridical recognition and degree-granting authority embedded in a defined institutional structure.
If al-Qarawiyyin meets that definition in its premodern form, then demonstrate it on those criteria.
What doesn’t advance the argument:
Suggesting that mentioning 20th-century accreditation implies “White Man recognition”
Assuming structural debate equals dismissal of Muslim polities
Treating definitional precision as prejudice
IAt this point the disagreement is very narrow:
Is the term “university” being used: A) descriptively, for any long-standing institution of higher learning that granted advanced credentials or B) technically, for a specific institutional form that originated in medieval Europe and has identifiable structural markers?
That’s the axis of disagreement.
It's not a leap, it's a clear implication of your argument that you're refusing to address.
Prejudice is not necessarily conscious.
Your post referenced those things with the implication that they disqualified al-Qarawiyyin as a university before the 20th century.
Okay, would you mind telling me where in that definition your original points of
Have anything to do with that definition?
Or have the goalposts changed, and you just don't want to admit it.
Suggesting that before 20th century accreditation it wasn't a 'real' university, when accreditation is a fairly late development of European civilization absolutely implies that
Again, it's not 'structural debate', the dismissal of Muslim polities is inherent to your argument, and I legitimately don't know if you're a chud who knows this, or legitimately too blinkered to see it.
Also again, this is anything but precise. Every point I've addressed wherein al-Qarawiyyin has all the aspects of a European university, you've ignored in favor of whinging about your prejudice being called it.
Fuck's sake, this literally and explicitly contradicts your prior arguments.
Prove it's a university. You can't because it's not and wasn't until the 20th century. Maybe if you weren't chronically online you might actually know something about it.
So we are back to the accreditation issue.
Sigh.
I rest my case. You clearly can't back up your assertion with facts. Good luck being ignorant for the rest of your life hahahahaha.
Oh, god. It's the people that constantly quote each other, type way too much, and get all upset over little internet things that mean absolutely nothing, but egos are on the line!
And we're in historymemes, not lemmyshitpost. Bravo, OP.
Yes, we're in HistoryMemes, not FictionMemes. Dismissing the validity of posted history with spurious arguments is kind of fucking important. Sorry that I'm not the biggest fan of letting misinformation go. Maybe next time someone can claim Columbus proved the Earth is round, and like a good HistoryMemes moderator, I'll sit there and smile and nod. That's what history is all about, isn't it? Spreading misinformation without the horrible fate of someone contradicting you (generic you, I know you aren't the same person as above)?
It is a statement of fact that it was accredited in the 20th century. Is there any other form of accreditation informal or formal prior to the modern accreditation? That's what I think aknifeguy was asking/explaining is how I understood which I don't know if I misread anything or not
I'm not an educated person so bare that in mind please, this whole back and forth between you 2 seems to have gotten quite spicy. I'm just trying to figure out why you are seemingly so angry and hostile to aknifeguy as that's how you came across to me (again I educated so I'm not qualified to judge your content, just a confused audience member here.)
It is also a statement of fact that Oxford still isn't an accredited university.
As another example, my sister got her Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering in the 1980's from Johns Hopkins University and her degree at the time wasn't accredited. No one cared. It was Johns Hopkins.
Accreditation is like the Better Business Bureau for schools. It means nothing to big businesses but can help consumers identify shady businesses from legitimate companies. Google isn't BBB accredited because Google doesn't care. Oxford isn't acreddited because Oxford doesn't care.
Aknifeguy posited that accreditation was only afforded to the university in the 20th century AD, thus implying in the context of the dispute that it could not have been a university before that. The issue is that accreditation itself in that sense only dates to the 19th century AD, yet it is extremely doubtful that he would dismiss Oxford circa 1750 AD as a university for lack of accreditation. The only alternative would be that Aknifeguy is suggesting that informal legitimization before the invention of modern, scholarly accreditation for places of higher learning count if they come from Christian European polities, but not North African Muslim polities.
"There were no universities until the 19th century" or "Informal accreditation counts, but only for the universities I deem fit"
I find neither possibility compelling.
I have about one semi-polite reply in me, and I used it up at the start. Having someone accuse me of saying what they said, incorrectly attempt to correct me on an idiom, and, ironically for someone who brought it up at the very start, moving the goalposts of the argument ("It wasn't accredited and it started as a religious institution" to "Well, it doesn't fit a much more specific definition of university in which both of those points are entirely irrelevant") tend to get my dander up; on top of what I regard as the absurd and pedantic nature of the position to begin with that no one would apply to any other founder of notable institutions.
Also, I'm irritable in general.
I can't speak for Pug, but something they allude to but don't outright state is that the other person's position is build not on knowledge, but ignorance one step removed from bigotry. They clearly have massive gaps in their knowledge (if they even know anything about this topic), and rather than educate themselves they make assumptions according to their latent preconception that "the world's oldest continuously operating higher education institute" is a distinction too good to let filthy Muslims have. Then when the factual flaws in their argument are pointed out they reformulate their argument and repeat the process again. Pug is uniquely... uh... colorful, but being on the opposite end of such an argument about one's field of interest would I think get most people riled up proportional to their general (in)tolerance for bigotry.
TL;DR: Aknifeguy keeps making assumptions based on what is likely bigotry and pretending they know what they're talking about rather than googling stuff they don't know, and this is a good way to piss off people who know what they're talking about and don't like bigotry.
The University of Oxford was founded in 1096 as a Catholic university with a curriculum in theology and canon law. The University of Cambridge was founded in 1209 by people from the University of Oxford, so also largely clergy. The University of Salamanca was founded in Spain in 1218, also to teach theology and canon law (and, in fairness, some harder sciences as well). The first subjects to be taught at the University of Padua when it was founded in 1222 were law (civil law and canon law) and theology.
And while it's true that the University of al-Qarawiyyin was founded as a mosque, mosques in that time were well-known and attested as places of learning; there's evidence that al-Qarawiyyin was a madrasa from the very beginning (and proof of it by the 12th Century at the latest), and while people in European universities try to draw a distinction between the definition of "university" and "madrasa," there's no real evidence for a meaningful difference that doesn't just boil down to "well, they do stuff differently."
Yes, mosques were major centers of learning, and yes, madrasas were formal institutions of higher scholarship. No serious historian denies that. The question isn’t whether they were sophisticated or prestigious. They clearly were.
The debate is whether the madrasa model functioned as a corporate juridical body in the same way the medieval European universitas did.
Madrasas generally operated through:
Endowments (waqf) Individual scholars granting ijazahs (licenses to teach specific texts) Study circles tied to particular teachers Administrative oversight embedded in religious or political authority
What they typically did not have was:
A single incorporated body of masters and students with collective legal standing A standardized multi-faculty structure under one corporate identity Degree hierarchies equivalent to bachelor/master/doctor conferred by the institution itself rather than by individual scholars
That distinction is structural, not civilizational.
Saying “they do stuff differently” understates the difference. The difference is not about religion or content. It’s about legal personality and corporate organization.
You can absolutely argue that the European definition is too narrow or too culturally specific. That’s a fair historiographical critique. But saying there’s “no meaningful difference” isn’t accurate — there are documented differences in governance, legal status, and credentialing models.
So the real disagreement is this:
Do we define “university” broadly as any enduring institution of advanced learning that granted recognized credentials?
Or do we use the term in its specific medieval legal-institutional sense?
If you choose the broader definition, then al-Qarawiyyin clearly qualifies very early. If you choose the narrower juridical definition, then historians debate whether the madrasa structure fits that category prior to modern reforms.
In short, it's not a university. And that's okay. Trying to pigeonhole it into that definition is the issue.
The debate is whether the madrasa model functioned as a corporate juridical body in the same way the medieval European universitas did.
Buddy. You just described Oxford, at least for the first couple hundred years. It's not 1:1, but it's very similar.
Oxford is to this day made up of 43 independent colleges that operate independently, which began as individual teachers teaching their subject. Incidentally, four of those are still today owned by religious institutions.
I feel like you intended this as a "gotcha," but that's literally what I mean by "no meaningful difference." Especially back in the first millennium.
Then you probably have to exclude every university prior to modern reforms. It's really not worth trying to split hairs for most schools.
Yeah, you really thought I was going to agree with you on the obvious answer there, but it really seems obvious to me in the opposite direction.
"If it's the broader definition, it's a university. If it's the narrow definition, it's debatable. In short, it's not a university."
You legitimately don't see it, do you.
No you don't see it. It's not a university. And if we open up the definition then you're still wrong because Chinese institutions like the Guozijian and Yuelu Academy are older in origins and represent sophisticated, long-running centers of advanced learning.
Of the two definitions you gave in that comment for a university, one you admitted al-Qarawiyyin clearly was a university under; and the other you concede that it is debatable.
You didn't say "It's not the oldest university", you said
You didn’t say “It’s not the oldest university”.
That's right. The post you posted said that. But it's not even a university until 1963. If you broaden the definition the post is still wrong because Chinese institutions would be the oldest.
...
Your inability to accept that is the issue. If it was a university before, why would it reform to become classified as one if it already was one? That's right, it wouldn't need to because it would have been considered one already.
...
Moreover (aside: it wasn't an officially accredited university until the 20th century, but it was a teaching institution ~200 years after its founding), the story itself is doubted by historians.
If the wojak is supposed to be someone pointing out Islam's consistent, extreme, and baked-in* misogyny regarding women's education, "well one time 1100 years ago a woman disputably founded a mosque that became an intellectual center 200 years later" isn't a rebuttal.
Edit: See below re: "baked-in", as the misogyny isn't baked directly into education. Thanks to NoneOfUrBusiness for calling me on that.
That literally doesn't exist. There's plenty of legitimate criticism of Islam in that regard, but what little it says about women's education is supportive. Automatically tying Muslims' (very real to be clear) misogyny to Islam is fallacious logic; people can follow a conservative religion and be conservative in ways that have nothing to do with that religion (or actively contradict it).
I've retracted "baked-in" regarding specifically education, having read more about the history, and I appreciate your comment calling me out. However, it's clear that the current status of women's education in the Muslim world is a direct result of Islam's baked-in complementarian misogyny.
Genuine question: What is the current status of women's education in the Muslim world? Do you have some kind of statistic you're going off here? The only thing that comes to mind is Afghanistan and everyone thinks those guys are nuts.
My understanding is that it's improving but that girls still face serious, disproportionate hurdles. When I remarked about the current poor state, one of the sources I'd read was this conference last year by the Muslim World League (largely funded by Saudi Arabia but understood to be a voice of moderation) who insisted that it's still a major problem worldwide legally and culturally.
Yeah it's definitely a problem in absolute terms, but what I was getting at is whether it's comparatively a problem; otherwise we can't pin the cause down on a certain factor. It could instead be an issue of development. It's not the exact same thing, but plenty of Muslim countries have low literacy gender gaps, and predictably this is more present in wealthier countries rather than more secular countries. In general it's better to look for structural explanations to these things rather than blaming culture or religion.
I mean, I thought the wojack was supposed to represent modern conservative muslim men. But still, not a great argument either way.
pack it up boys, I guess theology isn't something you can get a university degree in.
As we all know, such luminous names as Oxford and the University of Paris have no origins in religion. /s
Oxford and University of Paris aren't even accredited universities. They assign degrees based on royal charter, not peer review by other institutions.
And? so was Durham University, and Cambridge, and Oxford.
Yeah, I was wondering how they defined "university". Like, should we count hanging out at Socrates house to be going to university? It makes more sense that they mean "An institution that is now an accredited university and has been an institution in some form for a very long time." But it kinda deflates the argument a bit...
Probably an institution of higher learning with regular teachers and students, and the graduation of students from a regular 'course' of study, rather than purely ad hoc.