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:
A mosque or madrasa centered on religious instruction, even if advanced and prestigious
And a corporate, self-governing universitas with multiple faculties (law, medicine, arts, theology), standardized curricula, and degree structures
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.
You’re arguing against things I didn’t say, and then attributing motives I never expressed.
No, I’m arguing against the things you necessarily implied with what you said, and then extrapolating them to their logical, if absurd, conclusions.
First, this has nothing to do with Christianity vs. Islam, or “civilizing” narratives. That framing is rhetorical escalation, not argument.
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?
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.
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.
A mosque or madrasa centered on religious instruction, even if advanced and prestigious
And a corporate, self-governing universitas with multiple faculties (law, medicine, arts, theology), standardized curricula, and degree structures
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
This you? Either you’re unable to read, unable to write coherently, or unable to remember what you said.
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.
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?
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?
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.
That’s the disagreement. It isn’t about religion. It isn’t about legitimacy of Muslim polities. It’s about institutional classification.
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?
You’re still treating disagreement over classification as if it must stem from prejudice. That leap is doing most of the rhetorical work here.
It’s not a leap, it’s a clear implication of your argument that you’re refusing to address.
Prejudice is not necessarily conscious.
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.
Your post referenced those things with the implication that they disqualified al-Qarawiyyin as a university before the 20th century.
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.
Okay, would you mind telling me where in that definition your original points of
Its founding as a mosque-centered institution of religious learning
Its formal modern accreditation occurring in the 20th century
Have anything to do with that definition?
Or have the goalposts changed, and you just don’t want to admit it.
Suggesting that mentioning 20th-century accreditation implies “White Man recognition”
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
Assuming structural debate equals dismissal of Muslim polities
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.
Treating definitional precision as prejudice
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.
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?
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.
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.