Patrick Wolfe

APWH/Pd.3
HIP Yes
Historian Mehdi Nakosteen argues that the Modern University does have its roots in the
Islamic world. I agree with this statement. Mehdi has brought more evidence to the table that
makes sense than Walter. (ie. He traced the roots to 750-1150 C.E.) He assumes that the
university system was formed in Islamic context and made its way unchanged into a European
one. First, he discusses how the language barrier and general inaccessibility of historical material
to western scholars, along with religious prejudice and the decline of Islamic culture, made it
easy for Europeans to assume credit for the modern university. However, Muslims have made
many more contributions to education. There are many pieces of evidence that clearly lay out for
us all the educational values Islam has added to our daily lives. His logic is that the curriculum of
Muslim schools developed into the universities that we know and love today.
I also learned things from this side of the argument as well. I learned that Muslim have
contributed a ton the educational society. For example, they created the system of notation and
decimals. I learned about curriculum of Muslim schools from 750-1350 A.D. It closely
resembled the curriculum of higher level schooling of today. They also had many subjects of
teachings. I also learned that a new school was created for teaching religious indoctrination of
the Sunnite Islamic faith. It was funded by the state. It introduced specialized schools to the
world. The last thing I learned was that Muslim education also marked the transition from
mosque schools to public schools throughout the Muslim world. This made schooling more

easily accessible to many Muslims. This argument has enlightened me on how the modern
university really does have its roots in the Islamic world.

Patrick Wolfe
APWH/Pd.3
HIP No
Historian Walter Ruegg argues that the Modern University does not have its roots in the
Islamic world. I disagree with this claim. Mehdi has brought more evidence to the table that
makes sense unlike Walter, whose evidence is more scrambled. His assumption is that only the
European Institution has preserved the fundamental patterns and basic social role and functions
over history. His logic is all the educational revolutions Europe has had. However he has failed
to look further into history to see the Islamic origins of the European universities. He has
allowed religious prejudice to produce a cover over his eyes to the real evidence.
I learned quite a few things from his research. First, I learned that no other European
institution has spread over the entire world as much as the traditional European university has.
The degrees of the Universities has been adopted by societies around the world! Another fact I
learned was that the university is considered an European institution by Walter because it has, in
its social role, performed certain functions for all European societies. It greatly heightened
European knowledge. I also learned that the precedence given to leisure and contemplation
represents the ideals of bios the oretikos. Greek philosophers explain that this gives precedence
to social utility in the application of scientific knowledge provided by universities. The last thing
I learned was that in Walters eyes (that state universities began in Europe), is that Paris or
Bologna could have been the home town of the first university. This article, even though I
disagree, has thought me how much the Europeans have influenced the original Islamic ideals of
Universities.