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.