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 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.