Talk:Sayyid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Arabic names, a WikiProject related to the Arabic names. It has been rated - on the quality scale.

Contents 1 List by Anon 2 Port Said 3 warning: inaccurate material in the article 4 Moved to Syed 5 Sayyid Qutb 6 Removed list of sayyids 7 New table 8 Further question re Allawi 9 Arabic transliterations 10 Title/Last Name 11 Al-Zaidi 12 Wondering about patrilineality 13 Abbreviation PBUH 14 El Cid Campeador 15 Al-Zaidi and anon 16 Female Titles? 17 Copyedit

[edit] List by Anon

Hullo, anon, your list of descendents of the various imams is completely lacking the family names you promised. I left the list there, in the hopes that you're just in the middle of working on it.

Identification of the Hashemites with the other sons of Abu Talib is wrong -- they're descendants of Hassan.

It also should be made clear that only Twelver Shi'a accept all those imams, and that there are also Fivers and Seveners. Zora 5 July 2005 06:28 (UTC)

[edit] Port Said

Is the Said in Port Said related to this? --Error 00:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it's an entirely different word in Arabic. In a scientific transliterion "sayyid" might be used for the topic of this article, but Port Said would be transliterated "sa'īd" (more or less, the word actually means "happy"). Palmiro | Talk 20:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] warning: inaccurate material in the article

Just thought I'd let you all know that the last sentence of paragraph 2 and the entire text of paragraph 3 is complete Bullshit. The anon writer obviously has issues against Sayyeds.--Zereshk 21:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

oh, and btw, Zora, if youre following this anon dude's edits, let me introduce you to him: it is the likes of him that are what you call "Persian Nationalists": They hate anything and everything about Islam, especially relating to Iran, and yet go to great measures to defend its natonial pride and pre-Islamic glory, even if it means defending the contemporary regime. If you thought I was a "persian nationalist", wait until you meet these folks.--Zereshk 21:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I already toned his edit WAY down, but if you say it's doubtful, I'll remove it until he can come up with something like a newspaper article to support it. Now about the tax -- I don't know how it works these days, but I have seen a fair number of historical references to taxes to support sayyids, pensions for sayyids, etc. The one that immediately comes to mind is a fascinating 1832 book called Observations on the Mussulmauns of India, by Mrs. Meer Hassan Ali. It was written by an Englishwoman who married a sayyid of Lucknow. It is available as a free e-book from Project Gutenberg. Zora 23:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Historically, taxes may have been used to support some Sayyeds in Iran. But in contemporary times, such things do not exist (at least not in Iran, and not in a mainstream sense). Some Ayatollahs involved in politics may have had something like that going on. But for the ordinary Sayyed, there is no such thing as a pension or any other privileges.

Trust me, if there were such things, I wouldnt have to go begging the Financial Aid office every semester to increase my budget. I do have Sayyed blood in me, and a huge established family, but I have never ever ever even remotely heard of the things our anon friend is talking about.

However, one must remember that the claims of our Anon friend are the trademark of neo-Persian nationalists. Ive seen the likes of our Anon friend alot here and there. If youve ever run across www.orkut.com, you will see dozens of communities there that openly preach hatred against Arabs. These are reactionaries that have formed in response to the radical theocratic establishment in Iran since the revolution. They blame everything on Islam, and they still see the 7th century Arab invasion as the source of Iran's misery.

I on the other hand, do think that some good did come out of the Arab invasion, even despite all the tyranny and bloodshed. Rumi, Khwarizmi, Avicenna, Biruni, and a whole proud scholarly culture did emerge out of what Islam offered to Iran. We took the best of what Islam had to offer, mixed it with some indigenous ideologies, and came up with some pretty sophisticated cultural results. Yet I will be the first to tell you that the current establishment in Iran is not democratic, and has twisted religion to maintain its political grip in power.

But then again, what many people, such as our anon hatemonger here dont realize is that not all Ayatollahs and religious folk are or were ever part of this establishment. There were ayatollahs that were against Khomeini. There were those that did and do advocate the separation of church and state. There were and are those that view politics as evil and corrupting for the Shi'a cleric. There were good mullahs, as well as bad ones. Heck I even remember seeing ayatollahs that were proud of Shahnameh.

If I support(ed) nationalism, it was only an effort to try to preserve a culture that some reactonaries have been trying to erase from memory. Nationalism is good only as long as it is used to preserve ones identity and roots from oblivion. Not more. That's why I have also been writing articles here on WP supporting other cultures as well, not just Persian.

The story of Iran is a sad one. On the one side, you have the radical Islamists that try to erase all memories of Iran's pre-Islamic identity. On the other side, you have the reactionary people like our anon dude here, who long for the lost glory of The Persian Empire to make them feel an epsilon of pride, as Iran continues to spiral downward and fade away from its past mighty empire that it once was.--Zereshk 13:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You are a half-turk, half-arab with no roots who can't even speak or write Persian like a native (even in short expressions it is obvious in your case) who has no real roots in Iran and all your edits have been about image and fooling yourself about your fantasy of the bogus identity that you have created for yoruself in your mind. Nearly all your "contributions" to Wikipedia have been about promoting your fake image, especially your uncultured fucking Qajar turks and your lizzard-munching arab ancestors and basically, your "contributions" can be summed up as "fake image with pretty pictures" (may i say that the pictures are not nearly as "pretty" as you think, by the way?). Also, your behaviour in Wikipedia clearly shows the half-Arab/half-Turkish blood. You act exactly, 100% like a half-arab/half-turk boor, with ZERO tolerance and respect for others and ZERO sense of compromise and ZERO sign of culture or civility.

If you think the Khums financial aid and social programmes for the Sayyeds is not true, and if you have even one single cell of brain in your vacuous cramium, why don't you ask yoruself then what exactly "Sahme Sadaat" part of the Khums means? Does it mean "portion for the movie stars"?! You really ARE dumb, aren't you? And if you still have doubts, since you are from a mullah, sayyed family, I am sure you know that you can write to any of the ayatollahls offices or the howza and ask them any question you want. Simply ask them what "Sahme Sadaat" portion of the Khums exactly means.

Last but not least, the Persian Art picture that you have uploaded, you have characterized it as "the artist mixes blah blah with Qajar art" ... that is 100% bullshit. Can you provide a link that says the artist has indeed made such claim? That is YOUR claim, because you are from a fucking Qajar turk family. I will change it until you can provide a reliable link that supports that claim (i.e., it must clearly show that the artist has made such a claim); otherwise, what you are doing is again a sign of your turkish/arab incivility that you allow yourself to characterize an artist's art on her behalf to suit your fake "identity". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.111.161.69 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC).

Anon, you simply must not attack other editors this way. You can be banned for personal attackes.

If there are a significant number of Iranians who dislike special treatment for sayyids, then you should be able to point us to a website, or cite a book, that would prove your case. Zora 04:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

One lil sidenote I thought is interesting is that 69.111.161.69 (where Anon is writing from) is an IP address provided by Pac Bell Internet Services, based in CA, US. I on the other hand am writing this from Iran. I was born and schooled here too. There is no govt law that legislates Sayyeds to receive privileges. People really dont care about such things here. The vehement anti-Arab anti-Turk sentiments are something mostly often found in the Persian diaspora of California. When I used to go to school in UCDavis, I personally remember the Persian club there even holding on-campus open dance parties on Ashura day. Such was their hatred for Islam and Arabs.

Oh, and btw, "a picture is worth a thousand words". :) --Zereshk 00:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am vexed by the racist anon poster who keeps racially attacking user Zereshk. Even though I dont agree with Zereshk on many issues, I see it necessary here to intervene and answer some of the dumb allegations of Mr 69.111.161.69 thrown at Zereshk:

1. The Sahm-i Sādāt that Mr anonymous racist keeps referring to (and which he spelled wrong) is entitled for Sayyeds only because they are prohibited from receiving any Zakat, unlike non-Sayyeds who receive Zakat. Therefore there is no discrimination or special priviledges. This is verified by reading decree #1585 of Grand Ayatollah Makarim Shirazi, who has the final saying on Shi'a beliefs as a Marja.

2. The govt of The Islamic Republic of Iran does not enforce laws that make paying Khums mandatory for anyone. People in Iran dont even know how to pray in a mosque anymore, let alone pay Khoms. --Mehrafshan 03:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Harro. This Paul Chiu. Mr. Mehrafshan you seem so like Zeleshk. You same pelson? And Mr. Zeleshk, you say Sahm-i Sādāt is offset by other mean for non-Sayyeds, but why is two class of Iranian? Why is not same for all Iranian? I be grad you educate me. I am always interested Iran. Thank you. --Paul Chiu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.53.156.3 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC).

Harro to you too. You seem so like Mr. Mansour. First you go learn manners and some Engwish. Then we talk about your education. Stop attacking Zeweshk.--147.97.138.210 17:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved to Syed

As "Syed" is the primary transliteration of سید, I have moved the page. Zain 08:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, most if not all academic literature as well as pretty much all Arabic transliteration systems use sayyid. On that basis, I've moved the page back and standardised the spelling within the page.

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Arabic). Palmiro | Talk 23:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page AFTER reading that article on Arabic naming conventions. If you google "Syed" it will give about 3.3 million hits. "Sayyid" returns .8 million hits. Similarly, Yahoo gives "Syed" almost four million hits, while "Sayyid" returns .9 million hits. I don't see the problem, then, with "Syed." Most of the famous Syeds use "Syed" as the actual spelling, not "Sayyid". Finally, you rendered some of the links to the famous Syeds invalid when you changed the spellings of their names, namely Syed Kalbe Hussain, Syed Ali Naqi Naqvi, and Syed Aqeel al-Gharavi. Zain 14:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed the red links. I though I had got them in my original edits but I think I may have lost an edit due to a connection problem. Aqeel al-Gharavi doesn't seem to have an article under any title. Palmiro | Talk 14:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Google should be the only criterion. This is an encyclopaedia, and should reflect usage by experts and in serious reference works about the topic. These are a better basis for deciding appropriate usage, in my view, than frequency on the Internet. All the examples I've seen of this kind lately are for "sayyid", and I've been reading a fair bit about both Lebanon and Iraq.

I also think that it's much easier for the average English speaker to come up with a roughly correct pronunciation from "sayyid" than from "syed", which looks weird - there are very few words with that sort of orthographical pattern in English, in fact I can't think of any of the top of my head.

What did you make of the page on Arabic naming conventions? Do you feel that in principle, we should seek consistency on the basis of accurate transliterations, as indicated there, or should we simply follow common usage, and if the latter, how do we define that?

Perhaps if you have strong views on these broader questions, you should contribute them to the Arabic naming conventions talk page. Palmiro | Talk 14:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the experts don't agree on a spelling either. I've seen "Syed", "Sayyid", and "Sayyed." Personally I think we should go with the name that is most frequently used. To me, it seems odd that an article named "Sayyid" links to mostly people who use the spelling "Syed." I thought the page on naming conventions stressed following common usage, as their first solution to spelling something is "primary transliteration" which depends on frequency of usage. They use a search engine to explain that solution.Zain 15:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking more carefully over the Arabic naming conventions page, the current formulation certainly supports your approach. However, I'm not actually convinced by the results of the google search. Repeating it myself and confining it to English-language results, I find 654,000 pages for sayyid, and 2,660,000 for syed. However, 12 of the first 50 for sayyid seem to use "sayyid" to refer to "sayyids' or as a title, rather than as a personal name. It seems to me (but I can't really tell) that this proportion is lower among the hits for "syed". Palmiro | Talk 20:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Syed is used by Pakistanis and Indians, just because you see more hits it is simply due to quantity not quality. "Sayyid" is an Arabic word and the Arabic transliteration is Sayyid, while the Urdu transliteration is Syed. Primary and proper transliteration is the Arabic "Sayyid" not the Urdu "Syed". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Al-Zaidi (talk • contribs) 01:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Sayyid Qutb

Was this man a sayyid? The WP article on him doesn't say so, and my impression was that "sayyid" was his first name. I could be terribly wrong here, of course.

Somehow or other Husain al-Radi, who was undeniably a Sayyid and famous, got deleted in an earlier edit: I've added him back in. Palmiro | Talk 14:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed list of sayyids

After much dithering, I finally removed the list, because claims to sayyid status are controversial, and we do not want to put Wikipedia in the position of endorsing claims. There are various Muslim authorities who do that. We could have a list of those authorities and, if they have websites and their own lists, link to those sites.

As I understand it, claims to sayyid status are particularily abundant in Iran, and regarded with derision by many non-Iranians. Rather than get into THAT argument, it's best just to drop the list. Zora 18:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. And yes, in Iraq as well there are thousands of them.Palmiro | Talk 22:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Palmiro, you forgot to sign <g> Would you be able to get lists of the organizations that DO certify sayyid descent, so that we could put that list here? I think it would be extremely useful information. Zora 01:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New table

I think it was an anon editor who had set up the list of sayyid family names so that the Farsi (or would Persian be better?) name was the default, and the Arabic was an afterthought. I don't think this is quite right, especially as the ancestors listed were Arabs.

BTW, I'm not an Arab. This is not a battle for ethnic superiority. It's just that someone has to come first in the list, and I figured it should be the version in the language used by those honored ancestors.

For ease in reading, I set the material up as a table. I'm not all that good at doing tables, so anyone who do a better job of formatting -- please do!

There is one big problem that I didn't notice until I started working on the table. In the previous state of things, the Hashimis were described as descendants of Muhammad's uncle, al-Abbas I think it was. So far as I know, the Hashemites of the Hijaz and Jordan trace their ancestry to Hassan ibn Ali, not to Abbas. It was the Abbasid dynasty who traced their ancestry to Abbas. I lumped all the names together, but I'm not at all sure that this is right. Zora 21:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further question re Allawi

Are Allawis or Alavis descendants of Ali by his wives other than Fatima? If that's so, I don't think that they're sayyids, since they aren't descended from Muhammad. Yes? No? Zora 23:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is an understanding that a Sayyid is anyone who decends from the tribe of Bani Hashim (i.e. who comes from the lineage of Hashim), therefore there isn't really a controversy regarding decendants of Ali ibn Abu Talib. The idea of Fatima az-Zahra being a integral component of Sayyid status is not correct, as can be seen in books which detail which people are entitled to "khums". Therefore the table on details a very constricted Shi'i cultural understanding of the title "Sayyid".

I think this issue also needs a more broader scope as interpretations of Sayyid status differ slightly from Sunni and Shi'i perspectives. Also issues relating to Hassani and Hussaini conflicts with each other during early and medieval Islamic History are not addressed, and furthermore the development of the Sharifs and the Sayyids, especially during Ottoman times

Hopefully this can be included or at least considered.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.40.147.225 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Arabic transliterations

Just a remark (in response to a rather harshly-phrased edit summary): in Arabic, the definite article is "al". This is always written with the Arabic letters "alif" and "lam". However, it is assimilated to certain consonants (the "sun letters", mainly dentals). When assimilated, the spelling with "lam" is maintained. People transliterating Arabic into English adopt two approaches to deal with this: 1. they write the English with the assimilation, e.g. al-Zaidi becomes az-Zaidi, reflecting the pronunciation or 2. they maintain the original Arabic spelling, e.g. al-Zaidi, reflecting the letters of the Arabic alphabet used.

Neither choice is any indication of ignorance regarding Arabic grammar. Palmiro | Talk 02:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't speak Arabic, I find it much easier to deal with al-XXX, because I know al is "the". When it's assimilated to the following consonant, I get confused, since I don't know the sound change rules. However, I can also see a point in following the pronunciation. You guys who know Arabic fight it out and let me know the result, OK? :) Zora 04:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care too much either, I'm just preemptively defending myself against a potential accusation of ignorance should I use "al" in future. And I see that the person who objects to it so much uses it in his own handle... ;) Palmiro | Talk 11:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think using the former format is more correct and maintains the grammar of the Arabic language. While I do understand that the majority of people viewing this site may be more confused by assimilating the sun letters and not the moon letters, it probably won't be that big of a deal. When I look at the page here on WP, I have a tendency to read it the way it should be pronounced, not spelt. Just my .02. Pepsidrinka 12:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

-- Transliteration question:

http://sify.com/connect/discussions/viewpostsflat.php?f=13446341&pid=21698

"Ashraf or better class Mohammedans are listed as Saiads (Sayeeds), Sheikhs, Pathans, Moghuls, Malliks, Mirzas" -- Saiad is another transliteration of "Sayyid"? -- 201.51.166.124 19:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title/Last Name

I'm just curious -- I know of some people such as Syed Hamid Albar and Syed Hussein Alatas, whose last names don't appear on the article and don't resemble (in terms of pronunciation) anything on it. Why is this? Johnleemk | Talk 08:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people do not use those titles, but simply use "Syed." Zain 01:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Zaidi

We never seem to have engaged in any conversation on the talk page, just back and forth on each other's pages. I was VERY unhappy with your edits, but then got busy ... and now I come back and I think you have smoothed out the explanations so that they aren't as lumpy as they were. This is now a very useful article. I just thought I should do you justice :) Zora 09:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Noted Al-Zaidi

[edit] Wondering about patrilineality

so i can't seem to find anything on the web about this, but is there any requirement that siyyids have to be descended through the male line? obviously, siyyids are male, but i'm wondering if it matters whether they're descended from the Prophet on their mother's side or their father's side. anyone know of any sources on this? ~naseem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.47.40 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC).

Naseem: From what I know, and what seems to be standard practice in Malaysia and Singapore, Sayyid is a patrilineal title. You have to be descended through the male line to carry the title. My grandfather is a Sayyid, which makes my mother a Syarifah, but my siblings and I do not carry the title. Whereas my uncle's children (on my mother's side) ARE Sayyids and Syarifahs. I don't know why this isn't in the article, but hope that helps. :) Paperdoll51 04:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviation PBUH

I know muslims use this to show their respect, but I don't really think this abbreviation should be used in an encyclopedic text. It seems to me that it does not reflect a neutral point of view. Also, what does the '(as)' abbreviation mean? Does the same argument apply? Andersa 21:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Both PBUH and (as) are removed on sight. Did they sneak into this article? Aargh. Zora 22:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems user Sbaliz made the change Andersa 19:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

hehehe

zora... did the 'pbuh' or 'as' bother you? i dont think so...

as means alaihissalaam, means 'peace be upon him'

i think the use of pbuh or as in an encyclopedia is not a problem.....right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.124.24.80 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] El Cid Campeador

The title of Cid is derived from Arabic Sayyid or more precisely in the Andalusi dialect, al-sidi. This title was bestowed on Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar because of respect for him and not for any claim to descent from Mohammed. Shouldn't this be included? User:Jaedza Sunday, 21 May, 2006 06:21 UTC

[edit] Al-Zaidi and anon

Al-Zaidi, you seem to have declared ownership of this article. You re-added the notes re (Arabic last name) and (Arabic title) that don't make any sense at all. They're just hanging out there, referring to nothing. You also turned the sentence re Alavis into a tautology. You have to let other people copyedit your prose!

Quotes re the Alavi issue would help. Quotes from both sides (are sayyids, aren't sayyids). If they aren't originally in English, give the original language and then a translation.

And anon -- you restored your confusing sentence re Pakistanis using syed in London. Yes? So what? So far as I could tell, all it meant was that people chose certain transliterations into English. If that's NOT what you meant, you'd better explain. I presume that in Arabic, Persian, and Urdu there is one preferred way to write sayyid, and that because the scripts are slightly different, the word may be different. I presume that a written standard co-exists with a variety of spoken forms -- that is colloquial Arabics, Persian and Urdu dialects. I also know that different people make different choices as to how to transliterate Arabic, Persian, and Urdu into Roman letters. I also understand that when people migrate from a Muslim-majority country into various Western countries, they carry with them their language and their pronunciation of sayyid. So, which of these is the point you're trying to make? Or is it something completely different? Zora 01:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Al-Zaid, you have deleted half of my note about the used Syyedina by Bohras i.e.

Dawoodi Bohra use the title "Syyedina" for their Da'i al-Mutlaq (Spiritual leader of the Bohra community). Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin the current Da'i, per Bohra history, is a descendant of King Motiram of Gujrat who got converted to Islam and was awarded this duty by the Imam

You have not given the reason for this erasure. Are you disputing that Syedna Burhanuddin is a descendant of the converted Gujrati Hindu king? I have heard it from my Dawoodi Bohra friends and read in their books. Correct me with references if I am wrong. If you are disputing that per their faith the Da'i is appointed by the "Ghaib Imam", then correct me with reference as I heard/read this from Dawoodi Bohras themselves.

If you are disputing their faith, I am afraid we need to reinclude this. Just because I am a Sufi Sunni Muslim, it does not mean I should erase a Bohri Ismaili Shia faith from an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia is supposed to be secular. Hassanfarooqi 15:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

They are not the article. the term "sayyid" is the article. Al-Zaidi

Absolutely. The term "Sayyid" is the article and so its other uses, and I am adding the fact that Bohris use the word Syyedina for their Da'o who is not a descendant of Hasanain. Hassanfarooqi 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female Titles?

This article lacks the explanation of the female version of the honorific title (Syarifah/Sharifah). I can't find an explanation of Syarifah anywhere on Wikipedia, so I don't think there is another article or stub explaining the female version (unless I am overlooking it completely, which is possible). This seems rather unfair: at the very least, 'Syarifah' deserves its own stub, especially if the 'Sayyid' has a whole article about it. For now, I'm going to add a sentence about Syarifahs into this article; let me know if anyone has any other suggestions. Paperdoll51 04:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Syeda is the female version of Syed. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

I gave the article a light once-over. I think that the only major change I made was removing some Arabic words from a list of terms likely to be confused with sayyid. I don't think I've ever seen shahid confused with sayyid -- though I'll change my mind if given an example. Zora 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I saw this confusion a lot during my brief stay in Saudi Arabia. The Sayyids of South Asia spell it Syed and that is what is written on their passport. When Saudies translated it in Arabic, they translated it not as Sai'yid but as Saeed. Probably because they don't have/don't like the title Sayyid due to the political situation there. They also dont like the name "Ameer" and "Malick" which is spelled "Amir" and "Malik" in South Asia. Saudies translate it as "Aamir" and "Maalik" as these titles are reserved for the Royal Family and the King respectively. Another South Asian they don't like (and please dont mind my slight vulgarity here) is "Nake" (pious) as "Nake" in Saudi Arbia means sexual intercourse. They are very offended to see names like "Nake Mohammed" (trust me I am not making this one up). Hassanfarooqi 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but Saeed/Sayyid is the confusion that I did keep. The one I removed was the claim that shahid (martyr) and sayyid are confused. That's a problem I've never seen. (Unless it's a confusion current among uneducated American soldiers in the Middle East, the sort who call all the local inhabitants "hajjis".) Let me know if you do find an example of the shahid/sayyid confusion and we can reinstate it.

Saudi reactions to South Asian names ... well, there's so much ELSE that they don't like about South Asians, whom they seem to consider inferior and impure Muslims ... arrgh, I feel a rant looming. Better shut up and do something useful :) Zora 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the Shahid/Sayyid confusion, some African's pronounciation of "S" and "Sh" is very fine. So Sayyid can very easily be pronounced Shaheed by them. For example my Gambian boss has trouble making S distinct from Sh. When I told him not to worry and famous adhan caller Bilal is also reported to have had this problem, he was very relieved.

Hajji is sometimes an honorific title. In South Asia and Central Asia, a pious person was assumed to be a Hajji as the piety came only after one gave up his material life (i.e. retired from his job) and went to Hajj. Also, during Hajj season the Saudi authorities (e.g. cops) refer to all non-Saudies as Hajji as it works two fold. First the guy becomes happy and calms down, second he becomes attentive and follows the request of the cop. Maybe someone adviced the American troops to refer to every Muslim as Hajji as a PR technique :)

As for Saudies not respecting South Asians, I am afraid we South Asians are to be blamed. The first batch of Pakistanies that went there were doctors and engineers and it was a different image. Faisal's Pakistani adviser Dr. Anwar Ali had to do a lot about it. Then started the scum including street cleaners, beggers, and con artists. South Asians are not the only ones whose image got changed. The Americans were viewed as open minded friendly people who were there to help Saudies get into the next century. Europeans were looked as close minded racist, religous bigots. Now the opposit is true. Americans are seen as leeches sucking Saudi blood and Europeans as voice of reason from the West. Things change dramatically, dont they? :) Hassanfarooqi 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)