However, all of these facets of medieval university life are considered by standard scholarship to be independent medieval European developments with no tracable Islamic influence. Generally, some reviewers have pointed out the strong inclination of Makdisi of overstating his case by simply resting on "the accumulation of close parallels", but all the while failing to point to convincing channels of transmission between the Muslim and Christian world. Norman Daniel points out that the Arab equivalent of the Latin disputation, the taliqa, was reserved for the ruler's court, not the madrasa, and that the actual differences between Islamic fiqh and medieval European civil law were profound. The taliqa only reached Islamic Spain, the only likely point of transmission, after the establishment of the first medieval universities. In fact, there is no Latin translation of the taliqa and, most importantly, no evidence of Latin scholars ever showing awareness of Arab influence on the Latin method of disputation, something they would have certainly found noteworthy. Rather, it was the medieval reception of the Greek Organon which set the scholastic sic et non in motion. Daniel concludes that resemblances in method had more to with the two religions having "common problems: to reconcile the conflicting statements of their own authorities, and to safeguard the data of revelation from the impact of Greek philosophy"; thus Christian scholasticism and similar Arab concepts should be viewed in terms of a parallel occurrence, not of the transmission of ideas from one to the other, a view shared by Hugh Kennedy.
What was Makdisi not accused of doing when evaluating the parallels between European and Islamic schools?