Talk:Al-Mu'izz li-Din Allah

"conversion"

This is fantastical claim cited to an article at copticchurch.net and roughwood.net. Neither of these are reliable sources, and one of the hundreds of actually scholarly sources that exist talking about al-Muizz would mention this if it were true. nableezy - 22:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources are more than reliable. Open any Synexarion in any Coptic church and you'll find the same story. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 01:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There are real sources discussing this incident, and they say that an earthquake occurred after the "challenge" and as a result al-Muizz restored the church, not that he converted. This is a ridiculous claim, made less ridiculous only by the history of the user adding it. nableezy - 01:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You can keep repeating the word "ridiculous" as many times as you'd like. The fact remains that all the sources provided agreed he converted after the mountain moved. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 01:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those are reliable sources, one is a copy of Wikipedia article from an organization that does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, the second is some random self-published website. nableezy - 02:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Both are reliable, because both are copies of the Coptic "Synexarion". Look it up. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 02:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No thank you, "reliable" means meets the requirements of WP:RS. Either of these have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Either of the published by reputable publishers? Nope. nableezy - 02:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 02:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This one for example is clearly a self-published, hobbyist website. Simply saying "yes" in response to a question about it does not change that. Please stop relying on sites like this to include material here. More broadly, I can find no serious academic or expert record recording this conversion. Maybe it did happen, I don't know, but please find a reliable source for it, not someone's homepage or religious texts. Equally a Wikipedia page should not be written in such a way as to suggest that a miracle really occurred, as it currently does when discussing events prior to his alleged conversion. This is not a religious propaganda site. N-HH talk/edits 18:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is not a single reliable source saying the al-Muizz converted to Christianity, stop putting nonsense in encyclopedia articles. If he did convert, why then did Egypt and the rest of the Fatimid Empire remain Muslim? Why did his children remain Muslim? Why is he still revered as an imam in Ismaili Islam? nableezy - 04:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the one contested source mentioned above. Can you explain your take on the rest of the sources, including the books referenced in the article? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Which of these is published by a reputable publisher with a reputation for fact-checking? None of them. This is an exceptional claim and requires an exceptional source. nableezy - 04:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does the fact that he personally converted and became a monk have anything to do with the country and his children? He personally converted, and left everything and went to spend the rest of his life in a monastery. In fact, he is the only Fatimid caliph whose death is NOT documented by the Ismailis and the Shiites. His "disappearance" from history books points towards something, doesn't it?! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The two books you don;t like (both books of Coptic Synexarium) are published officially by the Coptic Orthodox Church. You want to contest the reliability of this publisher? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Church doctrine is not a reliable source for facts. Yes, I do contest the reliability for these publications claiming that al-Muizz converted to Christianity. nableezy - 04:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT a "doctrine". This is a historical book about stories of saints. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Which a real source calls a "legend". nableezy - 05:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The source used says that the story of the challenge and the mountain being moved is in the book History of the Patriarchs but the story of the conversion is not. I am moving that to the sentence that precedes the "further assert" about the conversion. Also, the source makes clear that this is a legend, so the text has to present it as such. Saying, as fact, that he converted and abdicated is not supported by the source. nableezy - 21:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the last paragraph in a more neutral tone. It's not up to you to decide what os a legend and what is not. Clearly many historical references regard this incidence as a true story. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 15:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. The source says it is a legend, and no "historical" reference says otherwise. nableezy - 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Where the said mountain has gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.201.34.103 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC) In my knowledge there is no such mountain in Cairo. The story of coptic church is only a religious fantasy. Imam Moiz if converted then he has to be provided great relaxation from tax and rituals. Whereas as per record jijiya tax was levied from christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.201.34.103 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

more accurate name

instead of Al-Mu'izz li-Din Allah we can write: Al-Mu'izz AD-Din il-Allah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qadeer Nil (talk • contribs) 01:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sunni?

How was Al-Muizz a Sunni adherent if he was a claimant to the Shi'a Imamate? I see no source in the "infobox" where his religion is mentioned as Sunni. Unless I can find a source for this myself or someone adds a citation, I think, it is prudent to assume Al-Muizz was anything but a Sunni. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)