I'm assuming you're dumb because I've made you waste all this time responding. I was never trying to do anything except waste your time. Mission accomplished.

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.

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.

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 not actually addressing the core point.

“…do you not understand how other modern universities started?”

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 for universities wasn’t a thing until the 19th century, so I don’t know what you expect that proves?”

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.

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.

Who would have thought that the country that assassinated the president who freed the slaves would be the bad guys?

Vote him out next election. Canada doesn't need fascist boot lickers.

The workers should own the places they work. It's the only way forward. Rise of the proletariat.

Fun fact: All bunkers have air vents somewhere on the surface.

That is the biggest grift of all. Being a billionaire doesn't require intelligence, it requires you to be a ruthless asshole willing to exploit humanity for your own self interest.

Cheers!