This person may be intended to be be Rashid ad-Din Sinan, leader of the Hashshashin from 1162 to 1192 and "Master of the Syrian assassins", which matches what is said in the game. Moreover, the time of his death roughly matches the one of Al Mualim's.
He is. If you play the mobile version of the game and take the time to read the slow-scrolling text about Altair, you will find that they say, "Sinan, Master of Assassins".
Why is there speculation about an Al Mualim / Warren Vidic connection? If that were the case, why not toss Vidic in the Animus in AC1 to read Al Mualim's memories of the Piece of Eden, and avoid the entire fiasco with Desmond?
- As you said, it's just a speculation. Maybe Abstergo didn't knew it. I too don't believe in it, since we would have lot of clues and conections throughout the games to such a important heritage. -- D. Cello 15:20, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
i think Warren was unable to use is own memories , because Al Mualim had a child sometime before the events of AC, so Warren would only have Al Mualim memories up until he has a child.
Adam2me00:06, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
Does Al Muaim have his finger amputated?
Its quite obvious that Al Mualim is basically Rashid ad-Din Sinan. It makes sense that Rashid would go by a name like Al Mualim. Also, there is some resemblance between Al Mualim, Rodrigo Borgia and Warren Vidic. So its quite possible. But maybe the reason why Abstergo doesn't put Warren in the Animus is probably because they're afraid that their best scientist will lose his sanity in the Animus like Subject 16. Or also because they are unaware of Vidic's Lineage. Or maybe because Al Mualim's memories are only available till he has a son. Which would probably be well before the events of Assassin's Creed.
yes but as he is referred in the game as Al Mualim, why do we not refer to him like that above his profile picture?
How Old is he?[]
Year of birth and age?
196.25.255.246 14:06, March 28, 2010 (UTC)someone
The strategy guide states that he is in his 50s Altaïr 11:26 March 29,2010 (UTC)
Here is written something about his Birthdate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_ad-Din_Sinan
should we change it to 1133-35? I mean he was obviously a real historical person^^ --Shao 11:49, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
Eagle vision[]
When exactly can you see him in eagle visions? (except the end battle) Cause i wanna try it on him
[[Special:Contributions/109.129.81.221|EXistenZ! 15:58, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ]]
I don't think you ever can seeing as that would kinda give away the surprise at the end.
AdminAuditor(e)Talk 21:08, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
No Apparently you can see him in eagle vision, but he turns up blue. I wanna know when in the game this is, cause i thought he only appeared in cutscenes EXistenZ! 08:29, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
It's before you go after Masun (that traitor guy that opened the gate). When Al Mualim tells you that he took all of your weapons, you can see him in Eagle Vision (he's blue and blue=ally (supposedly)... And that's the only time. After that he 'vanishes' when he's done talking to you. Subject 16 18 06:34, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
Al Mualim a Templar?[]
I did not find any convincing proof that he was a Templar after all, I think he just desired power for himself. The Templars are a powerful organization that all its members share a common goal for all of the organization's interests, one character showing himself as a "villain" does not mean he is a Templar. AltairTheFlyingOne 16:08, July 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Robert de Sable's final words are quite convincing of the fact. Altaïr protested that Al Mualim was not a Templar, but Robert countered him, asking why Al Mualim knew so much of the Templars' actions. Robert also said that "The only difference between your master and I is that he did not want to share," indicating their common allegiance. =GuardDog 16:33, July 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Alright then, pretty plausible, thanks! AltairTheFlyingOne 21:46, July 17, 2011 (UTC)
Name[]
When was confirmed his name is Rashid ad-Din Sinan? VaniVoid97 21:16, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
The Revelations novel confirms Al Mualim is the Old Man of the Mountain; Rashid ad-Din Sinan. Additionally, the AC1 mobile game refers to him as Sinan, and there's nothing to contradict that Nesty Contact me! 21:20, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
- ...You just copied my words. >.> -- Master Sima Yi 21:44, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
- It was a clear explanation. Why write something myself, which would have been less clear and comprehensive? Nesty Contact me! 21:47, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
- I should've put copyright on it. -- Master Sima Yi 21:48, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you shoud've, but you didn't. Nesty Contact me! 21:49, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, so he has this additional name, but WHY change the article title? EVERYONE knows him as Al-Mualim and this will simply confuse anyone who does not know of the novel or mobile game. The Jupiter article is not called Tinia. The Ezio article is not called The Prophet. All the core games refer to him only as Al-Mualim. So seriously, why change the name of the article? -- Vaxis Dec 12 12:51 AM
- Because Al Mualim's REAL name is Rashid ad-Din Sinan, and this wiki, being primarily focused on canon, will use only official real names as article titles and not what the most popular one is. "Al Mualim" simply redirects to "Rashid ad-Din Sinan", so there will be no problems. Don't think we're stupid. And calling Ezio's article "The Prophet" is preposterous and doesn't make any sense at all. -- Master Sima Yi 07:27, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is stupid, I simply think it is probably a good idea to keep the page named as it used to be. So why is Al-Mualim not the real name then, if he is called and credited as such in the core games of the series...? I'm a bit confused here as I have not read the novel this other name seems to come from.
- -- Vaxis Dec 12 12:18 PM
- Rashid ad-Din Sinan is his real name, Al Mualim translates to "The master" or "The mentor", which is his title. Nesty Contact me! 18:34, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
If "Al Mualim's name was confirmed in the mobile version of Assassin's Creed" is a fact, shouldn't he be called that in the article regardless of whatever this copyright business is? Vetinari(Appointment) 20:31, January 24, 2017 (UTC)
- I have been pretty much the sole editor for all our articles from the AC1 mobile game Altaïr's Chronicles (or at least the one who revamped them all, almost all were incomplete), replaying the game no less than 30x, and I do not recall Al-Mualim ever being called Sinan once. Maybe I just suck. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 21:11, January 24, 2017 (UTC)
- Even if the game does say that he is called Rashid ad-Din Sinan, he is known by most AC fans as Al Mualim. Frankly, This topic has been discussed before and I frankly don't really see the point in going over it again. Crook The Constantine District 22:19, January 24, 2017 (UTC)
- Has it been discussed since the request to "move the page back by a Ubisoft representative" as that's the only reason the page is back under his title? (I'm not familiar with the portable games, is Altair's Chronicles the same as the mobile AC?) Vetinari(Appointment) 00:17, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
Last Words[]
Should we put the ACR version of his last words in the last words section? Y'know, like when Altair says "I am sorry Mentor, but the Apple has corrupted you, and through you, would have corrupted us." Makao 11:25, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
Facts[]
Historical Fact: The Syrian Hashashin's were the very first of the "assassin" concept (as far as historical record suggests), and were based in Masyaf Castle, and led by a man named Rashid ad-Din Sinan... who was killed in 1192. The "order" had significant recognition during the Third Crusade. Modern Fact: The opening screen of EVERY Assassin's Creed game states that "This game is based on historical FIGURES and EVENTS for fictitious purposes." If you do the research, almost all of the important characters (if not all), aside from the Assassins (Altair and Ezio) and their families, actually did exist; in fact their historical death dates match up with when they were killed by said assassin in-game. Game-Universe Fact: Animus 1.23 (AC version of the Animus, aka "Abstergo Animus") is said to be not all that great, and even the ACR Codex comments on just how poor-quality its Altair Avatar was at portraying the Assassin (this may be reference to either Altair's "Accent Change" in ACR, or just 1.23 didn't really show his personality... or his face). Animus 2.01 (ACII) was a "garage-made" copy of the prototype blueprints, but it was supposed to actually run a lot better than anything Abstergo came up with... but it's translation software still needed some tweaking; ever since Rebecca has been altering it. So, in AC, Animus 1.23 can't translate "Al Mualim", but in ACR, Animus 2.03 is able to translate Sinan's title as "The Mentor". The ACR Codex is also able to show that "Al Mualim" is "The Mentor" in Altair's language (which we're left to assume is Arabic, or maybe Aramaic), and that his real name is Rashid ad-Din Sinan. Historical/Game-Universe Fact: ACR SPOILERS: Marco Polo is credited for being the first (if not the only one) to have recorded the facts/events of the Hashashin at Masyaf Castle... who had abandoned the fortess and possibly even "disbanded" decades before Polo's writing. ACR shows Altair having completed training the Polo brothers (Marco's father and uncle), and passing on his and the Assassin's legacy onto the brothers as Masyaf is being evacuated. Niccolò Polo (Marco's father) promises Altair that although Marco is right now too young to understand all this (Assassin Legacy, and their ongoing war with the Templars) that he will share it with him one day. —unsigned comment by 204.210.109.249 (talk · contr)
Just to be clear, where is it confirmed that he's Rashid? Guardian Assassin 01:21, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
Mercenari 01:20, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
- Not trying to argue, but which page, I didn't see it?RJX74 02:56, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Should we add the historical facts about his birth? Normally I wouldn't be in any doubt, but it seems like Al Mualim is only very loosely based on the historical Rashid ad-Din Sinan.Bovkaffe (talk) 10:44, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
Altairs chronicles[]
Does any one else think that the Al Mulim in chronicles is a completely different person. As shown in revelations Sinan was simlar to the AC1 Al mulim in 1189 but this guy is young, has a completely different voice and in no way reassembles the old Al Mulim. So is he a different person in canon or the same guy
- The character model and voice actor are different. However, from the perspective of the canon, it's the same. ~DarkFeather There will be blood -- just make sure it's the right person's. 02:43, May 15, 2012 (UTC)
Talal[]
If you kill Talal before Garnier and then go back to Al-Mualim, what does he say about Talal? It doesn't mention anything about it in the article. RS89 (talk) 07:39, July 21, 2012 (UTC)
He says the same thing, I believe, no matter who you kill first. However, according to the canon, Altaïr killed Garnier before Talal, and that's the reason the article is written this way. Nesty Contact me! 08:06, July 21, 2012 (UTC)
Not a Templar[]
Al Mualim wasn't a Templar, according to UbiGabe
"Al Mualim was not a Templar. He was corrupted by the Apple, just like Abbas. There is a difference.
Not all the people S16 showed you were Templars... remember that Subject 16's (and Desmond's) value to Abstergo was in that he might be able to serve as a roadmap to find the current location of Pieces of Eden."
108.36.135.163 15:27, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
- I have seen this and responded to it. But you must not forget that UbiGabe is not a writer on the games, thus he is not automatically right. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 15:30, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
"It wasn't Nine who found the treasure, but ten." - Robert de Sable.
And unless a game dev, not some random community dev/moderator, says otherwise, the info stays.
/thread. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 15:31, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
- Rogue states outright that Al-Mualim is not a Templar. It's under Otso Berg's inspirations video about him, and he would know. Link . Can someone edit the page to reflect this, please? 71.253.235.237 02:35, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Rogue states it, true. However, take into consideration that it's just a musing of a Templar, whose views are pretty Anti-Assassin, so obviously he's gonna manipulate facts for his own opinionated benefit. Also, I refer to Robert's quote, again. --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ Walkie-talkie 02:45, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
- So, what, a quote that alludes to something from many games ago takes preference over a quote that outright contradicts its implication in the most recent game? Rogue still states he conspired with the Templars, the quote can just as easily point to that. Additionally, this is from a Templar that idolizes an Assassin-turned-Templar and features many of them in the same video series. Why wouldn't he claim Al Mualim if he really were a Templar? An Assassin Mentor that led the public branch of the Assassin Order but defected to the Templars would be a pretty big plus. There's no logical reason he'd lie about that when he claims Shay, Baptiste, cel Tradat, etc. without denying their joining the Templars. This is a pretty clear retcon, even if the intention in ACI was for him to be a Templar. 71.253.235.237 18:45, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Rogue states it, true. However, take into consideration that it's just a musing of a Templar, whose views are pretty Anti-Assassin, so obviously he's gonna manipulate facts for his own opinionated benefit. Also, I refer to Robert's quote, again. --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ Walkie-talkie 02:45, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Juhani must have not known that Al Mualim was a Templar. Robert de Sable, who was alive at the same time as Al Mualim, has got to be a better source than Juhani, who wasn't. It's practically the same as whether you'd trust a first-hand account or a school textbook; obviously you'd go for the first-hand account. --Crimson Knight Intercom 19:20, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Yet he just happened to know everything else about him? The Templars have access to Altair's memories, they've probably seen it too. But even without that, Occam's Razor applies here. The simplest explanation is that Al Mualim was not a Templar, but he was working with them. Robert de Sable's line is still consistent with that, and that's Berg did mention he conspired with them. Trying to justify it with "Oh, well, he knew everything about Al Mualim's conspiring with the Templars except for the fact Mualim himself was a Templar" or "Berg was being dishonest in his own personal notes, even though he didn't feel the need to do it with any other Assassin-turned-Templar" is really silly and doesn't explain it any better. 71.253.235.237 19:56, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Juhani must have not known that Al Mualim was a Templar. Robert de Sable, who was alive at the same time as Al Mualim, has got to be a better source than Juhani, who wasn't. It's practically the same as whether you'd trust a first-hand account or a school textbook; obviously you'd go for the first-hand account. --Crimson Knight Intercom 19:20, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
Al Mualim is not a Templar. We have misinterpreted the original dialogue in the first game. Are you able to name one source directly stating Al Mualim is a Templar? -- Master Sima Yi Talk 20:09, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
- What does the encyclopedia say? --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ Walkie-talkie 20:26, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
Not that he's a Templar. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 20:42, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
- None of your sass. What does it -precisely- say. Also, the description of Assassination II (Robert de Sable) might put this into question. --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ Walkie-talkie 21:02, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
He was a Templar. Robert de Sable clearly stated this. Furthermore, I think his word is more reliable than Juhani's because:
A) Robert was the Grandmaster of the Templars, so he would definitely know who was a member of his organization. And B) Because Juhani was not around during the Crusades. Knowledge of Rashid's time with the Templars may have been lost in the centuries between the crusades and the present. Even the Templars knowledge of there own history has it's limits. Why else would they need someone to go through Shay Cormac's genetic memories when Shay himself was a Templar. Regardless, even if you ignore that evidence, you're still left with choosing between the words of two men, one who lived through the events, and one who is studying them centuries later. Who do you believe? Obviously you would go with then the views of the man who lived the events.
Finally, there is a third possibility: Juhani does not count Rashid as a true Templar because he betrayed them. Al Mualim was an Assassin who betrayed the Brotherhood to join the Templars, only to betray them in turn to pursue his own personal goals. He betrayed both groups. That may be the reason Juhani doesn't really consider him a Templar. Toolen (talk) 03:11, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
- Asked the writer of Rogue's modern day segments:
- "Al Mualim conspired with Templars to get the Apple of Eden, but was not a member of the Templar Order. He was just using the Templars to get what he wanted. He was a grumpy old man." (source: jnadiger.tumblr.com)
- I think we can put this issue to rest now. Crook The Constantine District 13:58, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to add that Al Mualim is never stated to be a Templar in AC1 and that it was everyone's incorrect assumption. Robert de Sable only says it was nine that found the treasure, meaning nine men and not nine Templars. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 14:32, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
No title[]
I can't seem to edit the page, but I wanted to add under "trivia" that mualim means teacher in Persian. Might be a reference to the fact that the historical assasins were a Persian orginization?
You should add at the start of the page:
- "I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also was a chasing at the wind. For in much wisdom, is much grief, and he that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow."
- ―Rashid ad-Din Sinan quoting Ecclesiastes 1:17-18
80.230.127.67 10:26, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Done. --Alientraveller (talk) 10:33, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
Blue Glow[]
Could we not just chalk the glow down to Dramatic irony over it being some sort of glitch or designHutchy01 (talk) 17:04, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
At the time, Altair did not perceive Al Mualim as a threat. Perhaps that is why he glowed blue in AC1, same as for why Lucy glowed blue and yet she turned out to be a double agent. Slate Vesper (talk) 23:30, January 8, 2015 (UTC)
he was clearly a master assassin.He nearly killed altair in the novel someone give him an equipment and skills
The only reason he nearly killed him was because he wielded the Apple of Eden. Though skilled, he was still an old man, and he was not as strong as he used to be. Toolen (talk) 03:18, August 24, 2015 (UTC)
Templar[]
He was never a templar, he was only an ally to them at most. Dunno why this page claims he was a templar. MedievalVibes (talk)
- People used to use the "Affiliations" field in the character infobox to indicate alliances as well. So, editors included "Templar" for Al Mualim's affiliations because he cooperated with Templars. They did this with Arno as well. I have said before that this is confusing and misleading for our readers, so I have corrected it here as well. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 05:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)