this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
405 points (98.6% liked)
History Memes
2064 readers
1171 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
If you check the source cited, the position taken by the author in question is very pedantic. He asserts that as the library was not specifically mentioned as part of the mosque in the earliest records, it should not be regarded that Fatima founded the educational institution; and that he doubts that the educational regime would have been 'advanced' enough for him to consider it a university at the time. This ignores the very real continuity of religious institutions of the period, especially Muslim religious institutions which placed a high value on scholarship and literacy, with learning and teaching. We recognize founders in other contexts who planted the seed rather than planning out the full end-product all the time. But when it's a Muslim and a woman, suddenly specifics become vital.
Lord. What irony.
I don't think that's an accurate summary of the authors findings. He says she likely founded a mosque, and there is zero evidence from midevial sources and earlier, that she did anything more than that (it's worth pointing out that her very existence is disputed by some historians because there are no references to her until centuries after her death). It's impossible to prove a negative, but there is no evidence the mosque operated as either a library or a university at the time of its founding. So again, I can't debunk this- nobody can - I just think it's pretty flimsy. I could claim the world's first university was an Egyptian temple, because they probably taught things there.
I dont think it's fair to say people are being overly pedantic because she was a Muslim women when the only reason this is getting shared in the first place is because she was Muslim woman.
The issue is that mosques in that period are synonymous with schooling and text storage in the context of North African Islamic polities. The objection then, necessarily, is either "It's not certain that it taught the 'right' subjects to be a university immediately, therefore, we can dismiss Fatima as founder" or "Storage of academic and literary texts only counts as having a library if it's a specialized building, otherwise it's just a sparkling shelf."
Some issues with this:
You could... if there was an Egyptian temple in continuous usage to the modern day that you could point to, with a long and uninterrupted history of operating as an institute of learning that has the features we generally recognize as belonging to a university.
Egyptian temples were used for textual storage (mostly records), but largely not teaching. Medieval Islamic mosques had a very core focus on learning, not just Friday Prayers and the Quran.
Al-Qarawiyyin is decisively recognized as a university now; the question of whether it 'counts' as a university is settled, the only question, then, is should the founder who created an institute for the purpose of learning, teaching, and information retention, be recognized as its founder, or should they not for some arbitrary criteria that we wouldn't apply to any other institution or founder?
It's entirely fair to say people are being overly pedantic because she's a Muslim woman when it's shared because she's a Muslim woman. How that does follow?
If I brought up a Black inventor who made something in a way that we would recognizably understand as having invented something, and the response was "Well that Black inventor didn't REALLY invent it, the concept and previous prototypes were already there", would it be unfair to point out that that's a pedantic position, simply because the inventor was brought up because he was Black? What about if the person making the response recognized other inventors as normal, even though almost all of them had established concepts and prototypes which came before them? Would you dismiss any possibility of pedantry being related to racism in that case?
My point was, and is, that you should always be skeptical of feel-good facts shared in image format on social media. The worlds oldest continuously operating university being founded by a Muslim woman is pretty cool - so why have I not heard it before? If you told me it was actually founded by [random European guy], I would probably just believe you because there isn't really any reason for misrepresent or make up that story. However, there is a pretty clear incentive to distort or embellish the story of Fatima because it pushes back against the narrative of Islam being misogynistic and anti-science. I'm not really trying to be pedantic here, just skeptical of the whole story in general. If a black inventor did something... at least we can agree they did it, and I don't really care about semantic arguments. I agree that people disputing black people being inventors based on pedantic arguments may be motivated by racism, but that's not what I'm trying to do here. If there was clear evidence that
a) Fatima was a real person, and
b) There was any evidence that, at the time of its founding, al-Qarawiyyin mosque was a center of learning,
I wouldn't really care about whether or not you could really consider it a "university" or not, and would be happy to consider her the founder of the oldest continuously operating university. However, the reality is that there aren't any historical records of Fatima until 500 years after her death, which makes her seem more like Dido of Carthage or Romulus than a real person. (Also, they literally found an inscription, believed to be 9th-century, within the mosque that says it was founded by someone else). Also, while madrasas were definitely centers of learning, all the sources I could find say the transition to a madrasa happened after the mosque was founded.
So idk man. It's not outright misinformation but it is disputed by historians for several reasons.
Because it's a minor piece of trivia? Because we're undoing some ~200 years of Eurocentric history-as-a-discipline here in the West?
... that's exactly what I mean when I reference prejudices coloring our interpretations of institutions. If it was a European guy, you wouldn't even question it.
Islam gained a reputation as exceptionally misogynistic and anti-scientific only in the last 200-300 years.
That's fair.
A is the part most open to dispute - while generally it's considered that figures mentioned in historical sources are based on real people, there is always a question of the reliability of transmission, and the source in question is not the most reliable.
B is more reliable - major mosques of the period that were founded by a patron are deeply connected with learning and education, due to the emphasis in Islam on interpretation of holy texts and decentralized religious authority (even under the Caliphate), and it's clear from a very early point that it was engaged in higher scholarship. You could separate the two - that just because mosques were created as centers of (religious) learning and textual transmission doesn't mean that it deserves the association with higher scholarship, but I feel like that's splitting hairs.
That's a fair rebuttal. Thank you for engaging with me civilly, it makes these discussions a lot more productive and enjoyable.