Nah I think OP is right. Googling around the story seems mostly made up for bragging points. It also started as religious school not sciences 100% and probably did more harm than good for women’s rights considering Morocco is at the very fucking bottom (137th).
Interesting that googling would take precedence over UNESCO or Guinness in a science community of all places. Guinness particularly is known to have rigorous quality standards.
I’m going to trust actual organizations with institutional standards over a Google search. That’s just me though. Other readers can draw their own conclusions.
I trust UNESCO, but isn’t Guinness basically pay-to-play, like if I got together with my entire city and we baked the world’s largest pizza, verified by a number of neutral third parties but I don’t pay the $$$ to bring the Guinness team, according to them it doesn’t count?
The UNESCO claim seems to be false, too. There is no mention of al-Qarawiyyin in UNESCO’s description of the Medina of Fez: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/170
In any case, UNESCO make it crystal clear that they only publish the nomination description, which is written by the state party (in this case the Government of Morocco). UNESCO understandably and explicitly disclaim the description documents, and only publish them for transparency.
I do wish we didn’t have these reality-distorting memes everywhere. Leave them to the far right - they don’t do Islam any favours, and they piss off real historians.
Yes: that’s the listing I went through. What you’d conclude from the documentation is that, at some point during the nomination process, the Government of Morocco made that claim. They’ve either since withdrawn the claim, or UNESCO has removed it. But, as with any false claim, once made it gets repeated, and the later repetition gets cited as evidence for the original claim (a form of circular citation, and one that historians get quite annoyed by because it’s usually quite a deliberate attempt to ‘hack’ the record).
Nah I think OP is right. Googling around the story seems mostly made up for bragging points. It also started as religious school not sciences 100% and probably did more harm than good for women’s rights considering Morocco is at the very fucking bottom (137th).
Interesting that googling would take precedence over UNESCO or Guinness in a science community of all places. Guinness particularly is known to have rigorous quality standards.
I’m going to trust actual organizations with institutional standards over a Google search. That’s just me though. Other readers can draw their own conclusions.
I trust UNESCO, but isn’t Guinness basically pay-to-play, like if I got together with my entire city and we baked the world’s largest pizza, verified by a number of neutral third parties but I don’t pay the $$$ to bring the Guinness team, according to them it doesn’t count?
The UNESCO claim seems to be false, too. There is no mention of al-Qarawiyyin in UNESCO’s description of the Medina of Fez: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/170
In any case, UNESCO make it crystal clear that they only publish the nomination description, which is written by the state party (in this case the Government of Morocco). UNESCO understandably and explicitly disclaim the description documents, and only publish them for transparency.
I do wish we didn’t have these reality-distorting memes everywhere. Leave them to the far right - they don’t do Islam any favours, and they piss off real historians.
This is cited from 2012 according to Wikipedia. Archived versions can be accessed in the citations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_al-Qarawiyyin
This article from BBC in 2018 also makes the same mention:
https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20180318-the-worlds-oldest-centre-of-learning
Yes: that’s the listing I went through. What you’d conclude from the documentation is that, at some point during the nomination process, the Government of Morocco made that claim. They’ve either since withdrawn the claim, or UNESCO has removed it. But, as with any false claim, once made it gets repeated, and the later repetition gets cited as evidence for the original claim (a form of circular citation, and one that historians get quite annoyed by because it’s usually quite a deliberate attempt to ‘hack’ the record).