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:
No, she did not. Fun meme though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_al-Fihriya
Here's a muslim viewpoint:
I went to university in a kaffir country a decade before accepting Islam.
It was a real cesspit. A breeding ground for zina, intoxicants, liberal values, feminism, LGBTQ+ etc. This is your average western University.
Basically, women cannot go to university, especially if they're beautiful, because that will invariably lead to men getting horny.
Reading the replies, do people think all Muslim countries are one and the same?
The historical accuracy criticism is valid but following with fox-news-style rhetoric "all brown people are religious fanatics" is disingenuous.
Look at Tunis. Since foreign states (fuck France) are not invading them annually, they were able to protest and progress. More than 55% of people in Higher Education are young women over there as a result.
Wikipedia article Women in Tunisia has a section on education including the progress and the current problems they face if anyone wants to read.
Edit : Highly suggest other sections too, article is written great. They go over current inequality in employment and marriage, and also progress in other topics.
This is my favorite part so far.
![[citation needed][5] In 1959, women were able to access birth control. In 1965 a law was passed that allowed women to have abortions as part of a population control policy. [8] Abortion on request was legalized in October 1973.[9]](https://infosec.pub/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Flemmy.world%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2F8f3ab35f-ec5e-4b2c-b52b-9d35791f5c7b.jpeg)
Yeah, "Fatima probably didn't exist" is one thing, "It's only a university if it's White and Christian before the 19th century" is a whole nother ball of wax.
do people think all Muslim countries are one and the same?
i mean, people generalize shit into monoliths. when it comes to politics, unless you're pulling out an opinion poll every godsdamned religion gets mashed down into its own little box and there is no variation within it so help me whatever god it's worshiping.
ITT: "It's only a University if it comes from the Université region of France, otherwise it's just sparkling higher learning"
Isn't that the post?
Higher education predates Islam.
Had to check quick if this was a religiousfruitcake comm
... for having a common meme template pointing out a piece of historical trivia?
Man, I don't even fucking think religion as a whole is compatible with modern democratic societies, and I have a special hate in my heart for the Abrahamic religions, but this entire comment section has really made me feel like I've been tossed a decade or two into the past.
If there was a joke involved instead of an lazy ass eye-rolling apologetic, I'd like it more! See:
I mean, not every meme is a knee-slapper. Plenty of memes here are oriented towards the trivia, with the joke being secondary.
I don't think "Muslim are way more misogynist now than in the past" is a great reply to "Muslims are very misogynist".
Most Muslim countries allow women to pursue university education, even theocracies as shitty as Iran, so I presumed the left was representative of a conservative trying to appeal to tradition.
Hell, some of them even allow women to drive cars! How amazing!
The Saudis were the only one with that bizarre ban, and it was lifted almost a decade ago.
Man, I'm not saying the Muslim world doesn't currently have a problem with misogyny, I'm just fucking pointing out that it's not the universal Islamic tradition Muslim conservatives claim it is.
What about Plato's Academy? It was an institution of higher learning, and it certainly existed long before the one in the meme. I'm not saying that the Academy was the first one either, it wouldn't surprise me if there were others before hand.
It seems to me like the claim "the oldest currently existing university" got converted to "the first university" and those are definitely not the same.
A. It was a mosque. It got converted later to a madrasa, so no, She didn't found an education center.
B. A madrasa Is the equivalent to a Christian seminary, not a full fledged university
Plato's Academy definitely did not start as a mosque... So I guess you're refering to al-Qarawiyyin University.
Islam did a much better job of incorporating science, so it's not really comparable to a seminary either. It's not like they only taught theology there. We owe a great deal to the science being done by Muslims in those days. A hell of a lot more happened there than in the Middle Ages in Europe.
Besides, the university of Cambridge also started as a religious institution. I see no difference. All old universities have religious roots I guess? It took a long time for mankind to come up with secular education so why are the Islamic roots even a cause to question the validity of this university?
The University of Taxila predates both Plato's academy and the instiution in question. The meme makes a somewhat dubious claim. It may be more accurate to say it's the oldest still operating place of higher learning.
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.
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.
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.
So, universities.
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
Buddy. You just described Oxford, at least for the first couple hundred years. It's not 1:1, but it's very similar.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
Then you probably have to exclude every university prior to modern reforms. It's really not worth trying to split hairs for most schools.
In short, it's not a university. And that's okay. Trying to pigeonhole it into that definition is the issue.
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 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.
"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.
No you don’t see it. It’s not a university. And if we open up the definition
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.
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.
You didn't say "It's not the oldest university", you said
In short, it’s not a university.
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.
But it’s not even a university until 1963.
...
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.
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.
...
I mean… It was actually a mosque focused on religious education when it was founded.
... do you not understand how other modern universities started?
It didn’t become a an accredited university until the 20th century
... accreditation for universities wasn't a thing until the 19th century, so I don't know what you expect that proves?
but I mean I guess we can move the goal posts some more if we want.
You're tilting at windmills.
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.
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.
This is your objection, here:
"I mean… It was actually a mosque focused on religious education when it was founded."
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?
Institutions like University of Oxford developed into degree-granting, corporately structured institutions with recognized faculties, charters, and governance systems.
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.
Accreditation in the modern sense didn’t exist, sure. But formal recognition, charters, and institutional frameworks absolutely did.
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.
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.
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
Calling that “moving the goalposts” doesn’t make it so. It’s clarifying definitions.
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?
And as for “tilting at windmills” that only works if the argument being challenged doesn’t exist.
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.
ITT: LOTS of people mad about this for pedantic reasons supported by circular reasoning
History Memes raging at clouds
From Wikipedia:
According to the widely circulated narrative, the school linked with al-Qarawiyyin ultimately became the focal point of the present-day University of al-Qarawiyyin. The assertion that the university was founded by Fatima al-Fihri alongside the mosque is not clearly rooted in historical evidence.[22] The university library, linked to Fatima's story, was restored and reopened in 2016, gaining attention from influential sources such as The Guardian, Smithsonian, TED, and Quartz that claimed that the library was the world's oldest continuously operating library, and that it was founded by Fatima herself. According to Ian D. Morris, a historian of early Islamic societies, there is no empirical evidence to support claims that Fatima founded the library.[23] The lack of historical sources and consultation with historians by commentators, including think-tanks, NGOs, social scientists, journalists, and bloggers, has resulted in numerous "sourceless, baseless" iterations of the Fatima story. As the story is useful to present-day discourses about women and sciences in Islamic history, Morris concludes that the speculation repeated by modern writers "says more about the current value of Fatima as a political symbol than about the historical person herself."
Idk if it's true or not but it checks all of the boxes for misinformation spread in liberal circles.
According to the widely circulated narrative, the school linked with al-Qarawiyyin ultimately became the focal point of the present-day University of al-Qarawiyyin. The assertion that the university was founded by Fatima al-Fihri alongside the mosque is not clearly rooted in historical evidence.[22] The university library, linked to Fatima’s story, was restored and reopened in 2016, gaining attention from influential sources such as The Guardian, Smithsonian, TED, and Quartz that claimed that the library was the world’s oldest continuously operating library, and that it was founded by Fatima herself. According to Ian D. Morris, a historian of early Islamic societies, there is no empirical evidence to support claims that Fatima founded the library.[23] The lack of historical sources and consultation with historians by commentators, including think-tanks, NGOs, social scientists, journalists, and bloggers, has resulted in numerous “sourceless, baseless” iterations of the Fatima story. As the story is useful to present-day discourses about women and sciences in Islamic history, Morris concludes that the speculation repeated by modern writers “says more about the current value of Fatima as a political symbol than about the historical person herself.”
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.
Idk if it’s true or not but it checks all of the boxes for misinformation spread in liberal circles.
Lord. What irony.
