It is a statement of fact that it was accredited in the 20th century.

It is also a statement of fact that Oxford still isn't an accredited university.

As another example, my sister got her Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering in the 1980's from Johns Hopkins University and her degree at the time wasn't accredited. No one cared. It was Johns Hopkins.

Accreditation is like the Better Business Bureau for schools. It means nothing to big businesses but can help consumers identify shady businesses from legitimate companies. Google isn't BBB accredited because Google doesn't care. Oxford isn't acreddited because Oxford doesn't care.

I can't speak for Pug, but something they allude to but don't outright state is that the other person's position is build not on knowledge, but ignorance one step removed from bigotry. They clearly have massive gaps in their knowledge (if they even know anything about this topic), and rather than educate themselves they make assumptions according to their latent preconception that "the world's oldest continuously operating higher education institute" is a distinction too good to let filthy Muslims have. Then when the factual flaws in their argument are pointed out they reformulate their argument and repeat the process again. Pug is uniquely... uh... colorful, but being on the opposite end of such an argument about one's field of interest would I think get most people riled up proportional to their general (in)tolerance for bigotry.

TL;DR: Aknifeguy keeps making assumptions based on what is likely bigotry and pretending they know what they're talking about rather than googling stuff they don't know, and this is a good way to piss off people who know what they're talking about and don't like bigotry.

It is a statement of fact that it was accredited in the 20th century. Is there any other form of accreditation informal or formal prior to the modern accreditation? That’s what I think aknifeguy was asking/explaining is how I understood which I don’t know if I misread anything or not

Aknifeguy posited that accreditation was only afforded to the university in the 20th century AD, thus implying in the context of the dispute that it could not have been a university before that. The issue is that accreditation itself in that sense only dates to the 19th century AD, yet it is extremely doubtful that he would dismiss Oxford circa 1750 AD as a university for lack of accreditation. The only alternative would be that Aknifeguy is suggesting that informal legitimization before the invention of modern, scholarly accreditation for places of higher learning count if they come from Christian European polities, but not North African Muslim polities.

"There were no universities until the 19th century" or "Informal accreditation counts, but only for the universities I deem fit"

I find neither possibility compelling.

I’m not an educated person so bare that in mind please, this whole back and forth between you 2 seems to have gotten quite spicy. I’m just trying to figure out why you are seemingly so angry and hostile to aknifeguy as that’s how you came across to me (again I educated so I’m not qualified to judge your content, just a confused audience member here.)

I have about one semi-polite reply in me, and I used it up at the start. Having someone accuse me of saying what they said, incorrectly attempt to correct me on an idiom, and, ironically for someone who brought it up at the very start, moving the goalposts of the argument ("It wasn't accredited and it started as a religious institution" to "Well, it doesn't fit a much more specific definition of university in which both of those points are entirely irrelevant") tend to get my dander up; on top of what I regard as the absurd and pedantic nature of the position to begin with that no one would apply to any other founder of notable institutions.

Also, I'm irritable in general.