Talk:Atassi family/Archive 1

Naqabat Al Ashraf
I am not sure how to engage in a discussion here....this is an attempt.

I have no problem going back and forth, neither do my cousins, if we have to defend our heritage against someone who obviously has no right to make assumptions about the family's origins, let alone would not reveal his identity or listen to reason.

Dear Sir,

Please let's not take it personal here. You can claim anything you want (true or fales) on your family website. However on a Encyclopedic things have to be accurate and has to present the truth or atleast common knowledge or different openions. so why don't you do me a favour and stop this redicilous pitty attitude and approach this in a historical / research manner. I thought i presented the facts based on evidence. and if you have any suggestions to improve the quality of this post please let's work together. Otherwise I am not interested in a pitty quarell. _________________________________________________________________________________________

Friend,

I appreciate that this is an encyclopedia, but unfortunately, you are not treating it as such. For us to work together there has to be mutual understanding of intentions and goals. What you view as factual I may view as the opposite. You may not know what constitutes proof of "sharaf" in Islamic law, and that is simply not my problem, nor my family's.  Please do not think that you are in any position to judge, nor am I in any position to present any credentials or proofs to you. We did not ask for our family to be added to this encyclopedia, and we definitely, did not add this topic ourselves. So if you want to keep this section, you will have to listen! Unless you start dealing with me as an equal, not as a defendant, this "quarrel" will not end. I'm willing to cooperate with you, for it is my family, after all, about which you are writing. But for me to help build this section you will have to be as accountable as I am. If you ask me a question and expect an answer out of me, then you re bound to also answer my questions, and so on. Till then, this will continue, unfortunately.

---

Dear Sir,

I am going to start with few lines here, please point out if something is inaccurate and would be ncie to see some logical evidence similar to those you have on your website. Thanks

"Atassi is the name of a prominent family in Homs, Syria dating back to the 16th century AD. Many Family members assumed prominent religious and political positions in Ottoman, French, and Independent Syria. The name Al-Atassi evolved from the word " الأطاسي" then later and at times العطاسي which means "the sneaser" in Arabic. A family member Suleiman Al-Atassi was refered to as "Al-Sayyed" in realestate ottoman documents in the 18th century"

---

(The name Al-Atassi evolved from the word " الأطاسي" then later and at times العطاسي which means "the sneaser" in Arabic)

This is in accurate. The evolution of this name went from  عطاسي to  أطاسي to أتاسي. This is dictated by

1)	simple logic. 2)	popular belief among family members as well as others, as handed down generation to generation, and as written by their ancestors. 3)	documentation in the Islamic court of law during the Ottoman era.

(A family member Suleiman Al-Atassi was refered to as "Al-Sayyed" in realestate ottoman documents in the 18th century")

This is inaccurate and too inclusive. This is to mean that only one person in the family was labeld as "Sayyed". That is not true, as many before him and after him were addressed by that title. There is no reason why only Suleiman is titled Sayed! Not only that, but he was also labeld as "Fakhr Al-Sadat" and "Fakhr Al-Sadah Al-Ashraf", and "Khadem Sharee'at jaddihi Aleihi Assalatu wa Assalam" (The servant of his grandfather's law, peace be upon him). There are others who were addressed in similar ways. If you are willing to cooperate I can show you these documents. -

That's a good start. I looked into your website and saw some of the document. It seemed to me ( and correct me if I was wrong) that the أطاسي  is older as since founder him self was called أطاسي

---

I do have what you are asking for, but there are two problems with your approach:

1)	what if I didn't have these documents? Do you realize how difficult it is to collect these old documents?  Especially if we are talking the 10th Hijri century (16th-17th AD)?  It is next to impossible!

2)	You cannot create history based on this logic, meaning: what is older is necessarily more accurate.

At any time while they were in Syria, our ancestors were called أتاسي, أطاسي, and عطاسي

Here is an example. Ahmad the first (the founder) was called in all of his biographies أطاسي, but in an old document dated in 984 (which pre-dates any of these biographies) he was titled أتاسي

Find it here:

http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Sheikh_Zein2.jpg

but in an even older document dating back to 979 hijri, عطاسي was used!

http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Zihrawi-4.jpg

So you can see the flaw in your logic. What if the former documents was a few years earlier instead? Would you have concluded that أتاسي is older? This would be a very erroneous assumption, as you have no idea what other documents were produced so long ago and are now missing or not accessible to us! Here is where logic, family tradition, and clearly-stated text in law documents will help you.

In other words, I didn't have to present the above two documents to you, because, simply, there are accounts (that are both legally binding and constitute family tradition) that you cannot ignore.

1)	In numerous documents that were produced in the Islamic court of law it was very clearly stated that عطاسي is the origin of the word. Look here, for example:

http://www.alatassi.net/images/Khaled-Waqf1.gif

and:

http://www.alatassi.net/images/Zihrawi.jpg

regardless of when these documents were dated, they are very clear, and are legally binding. They are court documents that have the Islamic judge's signature on them as well as the witnesses.

2)	A family scholar and an ancestor related to us the whole story! Why jump over it!!

http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Ibraheem.jpg

You cannot write about my family and completely ignore its handed down tradition!

You see sir, I am not creating a story out of nothing.

(Important: you may not be able to view the documents if you just click on the provided links. you may have to copy/paste the whole link in a separate explorer) ---

Bassel,

Thanks! this was a good and valid presentation. I re-wrote the section to reflect that the names were used interchangably.

Now moving on: I wrote

"A family member Suleiman Al-Atassi was refered to as "Al-Sayyed" in realestate ottoman documents in the 18th century."

This is a key issue that need to be addressed. What needs to be explained is that how in Shiek Zein lineage cert. Ahmad Atassi was not refered to as Sayyed wherese the Kaylani was refered to as such.It would only be natural for both to be called Sayyed if that to be the case. It seems ( and correct me if I am wrong) that Sayyed title was only given later to some family members. Plus Atassi family never recieved a certification similar to that of Shiek Zein. I would suspect that Atassis did not have a proof to their linage (even it was true) and could not claim in on official documents in early times. Awaiting your responce.

thanks

-

No we are not done, just yet.

Your changes do not reflect the factual truth. You will have to mention the evolution of the word as you see it in the 2 court documents which very clearly stated that: أطاسي had evolved from عطاسي.

You are still ignoring that, not to mention ignoring what Ibrahim Afandi had written about the evolution of the name as handed down generation to generation. This evolution had already happened in Turkey as tradition goes, and when our ancestors moved to Syria they were already known by all three surnames.

But the origin is عطاسي. The word أطاسي has no meaning except that is a mispronunciation of عطاسي. So the word evolved from a meaningful surname to (a) mispronounced one(s). The surname could not have evolved from a word that has no meaning to one that did, logically!!

In show of cooperation, I will not make these changes and will wait for you to do them yourself as you see fit. I will answer your question about Ahmad Atassi in a minute, but unless we are reflecting the facts, we will be stuck here, and I will have to make the amendments myself, again.

As for Ahamd Atassi, you are making historical assumptions based on what limited knowledge we have of him, again.

If you have studied court documents as I have, you would find, numerous times, the same person in question being addressed as "Sayed" in one instance, and then a few months later he may be addressed as "Sheikh", and then as "Haj" and so on! Sayed Suleiman himself was addressed in a court document I have as simply "Haj" Suleiman.

The Ashraf were not addressed as Sayed in all documents all the time!! I have many documents in which naqeeb Al-Ashraf himself in Homs was addressed only as "sheikh"! Not to mention I have many documents with ashraf names on them (from the Jandali, Zihrawi, Hiraki, Shekh Zein families and others), all addressed as either haj or shekh, or with no title at all.

Here is a document to show my point.

http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Khaled Atassi Sydi Khaled Masjed doc.jpg

In it, three Atassi cousins were mentioned. One was addressed as Sayed and two as "haj". But more importantly, a Hiraki in this document is addressed as "sheikh", while an Atassi is addressed as Sayed!! Mahmood Hiraki is actually the direct grandson of Abdul-Jaleel Al-Hiraki the naqeeb of Homs!

In other words, to answer your question: in the old times, if you see titles of sharaf used with a person, then that is a proof of his lineage to bani Hashem. However, if the document does not use them, then you cannot simply exclude the fact that he is a shareef. You just cannot make inference from a document that does not address him in the appropriate manner, but you can make inference from one that does.

If I only had that one document in which Sayed Suleiman was addressed as "haj", we would have never known that he had also been addressed as Sayed and as Fakhr Al-Ashraf…..

The document of Sheikh Zein I showed you is the only one I have in which Ahamd Atassi was involved. We are talking 1576 AD! How many documents do you have from that era? How many documents does anyone have from that time that involves their ancestors? So this is the only window we have on Ahmad Atassi currently, and you cannot make assumptions based on one document.

Now, one fact has escaped you! You acknowledge that the member of Sheikh Zein family was addressed as "Sayed" in that document (by the way, he was no a Keilani, as you said, but he was a follower of that sect, and belonged to the Sheikh Zein (Barmi) family of Homs). But you forgot that their very surname, "Sheikh Zein", which came from a certain ancestor called "Zein", involved the title "Sheikh" and not "Sayed"! That again, proves my point that using "Sheikh" does not exclude (or prove) any thing. Using sharaf titles does. The Sheikh Zein family produced no less than 4 Nuqaba' of Ashraf in Homs, and they say, even, that their ancestor, Sheikh Zein himself, was a naqeeb as well.

Take the Rifaie family that you clearly believe are Ashraf because they hung a family tree in their Manzool. Did you know that not even one author who wrote about Ahmad Al-Rifaie (their ancestor) during Ahmad's era and throughout the 300 years that followed, not even one, called him Sayed, mentioned that he is a descendent of the prophet, or even labeled him as "Husseini"! He had always been known as "Sheikh Ahmad Al-Rifaie". The exact same goes with the ancestor of the Keilanis, Abdul-Qader. And I can give you many other examples. These people were zuhhad and Ulma, they did not care much about spreading their nasab and showing off, yet they did have the proof!

On the other hand, you will have to remember that Ahmad Atassi's family was new at that time in Homs and Syria. His grandfather had arrived there from Turkey (and before that Yemen). People may not have known their origins. Ahamd Atassi may have not shown anyone his proof of being shareef. In fact, that is exactly why he was called "Turkmani" by one author (and later others copied).

Now, having said that, here is a manuscript written by a grandson of Ahmad Atassi, Mohammd the Mufti of Homs (1800-1882 AD). Notice how he addressed his grandfather.

http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Mohammad Atassi document.jpg

Finally, you say: " I would suspect that Atassis did not have a proof to their linage (even it was true) and could not claim in on official documents in early times"

Response: I have already mentioned above that the more ancient you go, the less your chances are of finding documents. But!! If they did not have proof, how were they addressed by sharaf titles in many documents (yes, even if they are a little later)? These documents by themselves are dealt with as a proof, because the judge, the mufti and witnesses approved them, so they are islamically and legally binding. And if these Atassis back then did not have any proof, then they would have not been able to claim such a status. That is why there was a naqeeb: to make sure no one claims status of Ashraf without a valid proof.

Just a story: I went to Sayed Suleiman manzool in Homs three years ago, and they asked me there: "we ahve always been told by our fathers that Sayed Suleiman wore a green turban. What does that mean?" In these days, only ashraf wore that turban, and one of the naqeeb's tasks is to prevent anyone else from wearing them.

I hope, sir, I did not just waste my time, and that your are taking all the above seriously.

-

Bassel,

OK, I made some changes. I think now that language is very appropriate.

I agree with you that A sharif could be refered to as Sayyed and sometimes simply as Shiek. The problem with the refrence you sited (i.e. http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Khaled Atassi Sydi Khaled Masjed doc.jpg as well as http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Mohammad Atassi document.jpg ) is that both are too recent. Titles got corrupted and you would see many non arabs called Sayyed ( so the word really lost it's meaning by the end of the 18th century) the title "Fakhr Al Ashraf" is really the only definite designation. 9( As for Rifais I have to agree with your doubts only for the sheer number of descendands claiming Rifai Hussayni descent. They could easly number 100 000 and that's jus too much. Plus many were Rifai in terms of Rifai Sufi School (that also applied to the green turbune) but not in descend and over time many claimed rifai descend that way .On the other hand, Hirakis, Zehrawi, and Tolaymat were designated "fakhr al-ashraf" as early as the 12th century AD, (See 11th century Tolaymat endowmnent document (Wakf) people even called their neighbrhood in Bustan Al Dewan as "Hay AL Ashraf" meaning the older the disgnation the more credible it is.

It seems to be that up until Suleiman there is no such designation, and if there is, it is only made in retrospect in much recent documents. Even in Kankhah manuscript where he mentions members of the Atassi family extensivly, not one he refered to them as Sayyed. I seems to me that the Sayyed Title only got into affect and was acknowleged by others in the late 18th century.

Any thoughts?

---

Sir,

First of all I would like to have the honor of addressing you by your first name, the way you are addressing me by mine, since we are trying to be honest with each other.

I am not sure what point you were trying to make when referring to the large numbers of people who claim descent from the Rifaies. I agree that many of them may have had untrue claims and cannot prove it, but that is not the point we are discussing here.

The point was: only around the 11th-12th Hijri century (and thereafter) these families that we today regard as true Rifaies and Ashraf (such as Jandalis of Homs, Sabsabies and Hariris of Hama, Kayyalis and Sayaddis of Halab and others) started to be titled as Sayeds. Their ancestor Ahmad Al-Rifaie, (or more correctly, the famous cousin of their ancestors) was not addressed by anything but "sheikh" by the authors/historians of his time and the historians of the next three hundred years (at least). None of these people mentioned that he descended from the prophet (PBUH), or attached the word "Husseini" to him. In fact, those who wrote his biography when they mentioned his origins they said he came from the west, or that his of the Rifa'a tribe. I am trying to make a point: his descendents later on were regarded by all as ashraf. At one point, they achieved the ashraf status because they were able to prove it through the authentic means. I don't care how many other families later wrongly claimed descent from Ahmad Al-Rifaie

How about the Jandalis, to whom you had referred in the past as ashraf and asked me to see their tree. Their ancestor, Sheikh Jandal, is known just like that by the title of sheikh! None of those who wrote his biography around his time or the next few centuries said anything about his sharefian status or labeled him as Sayed. I submit to you his biography from Ibn Katheer's "Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah":

الشيخ الصالح جندل بن محمد المنيني كانت له عبادة وزهادة وأعمال صالحة، وكان الناس يترددون إلى زيارته بمنين، وكان يتكلم بكلام كثير لا يفهمه أحد من الحاضرين بألفاظ غريبة، وحكى عنه الشيخ تاج الدين أنه سمعه يقول‏:‏ ما تقرب أحد إلى الله بمثل الذل له والتضرع إليه، وسمعه يقول الموله منفي من طريق الله يعتقد أنه واصل ولو علم أنه منفي رجع عما هو فيه، لأن طريق القوم من أهل السلوك لا يثبت عليها إلا ذوو العقول الثابتة‏.‏ وكان يقول‏:‏ السماع وظيفة أهل البطالة‏.‏ قال الشيخ تاج الدين‏:‏ وكان الشيخ جندل من أهل الطريق وعلماء التحقيق‏.‏ قال‏:‏ وأخبرني في سنة إحدى وستين وستمائة أنه قد بلغ من العمر خمساً وتسعين سنة‏.‏  قلت على هذا فيكون قد جاوز المائة، لأنه توفي في رمضان من هذه السنة، ودفن في زاويته المشهورة بقرية منين، وتردد الناس لقبره يصلون عليه من دمشق وأعمالها أياماً كثيرة رحمه الله‏.‏

No sayed, no shareef, no husseini, and no reference to a shrefian lineage. Other biographies of that time and later were similar in that manner. It was only much later that authors started referring to him as a Sayed and his progeny as ashraf.

This is also true of many other ashraf families, many of whom started to hold Niqabah position in the later part of the ottoman era: the Keilanis, the Shuwaykis, the Kuzbaris, the Samadies, the Kawakebies, the Ulwanis, the Shams Al-Deens, …and, many, many others. Each of these families descended from a certain famous ancestor, whose biography is well known, but you will find no reference in these biographies of his origin or sharefian status.

Let's take the Zahrawis of Homs. They appeared in biography books somewhere around the 8th Hijri century (14th AD). Now take a book like شذرات الذهب by Ibn Al-Imad. He mentioned several of them in Homs. Not once did he refer to any of them as Sayed, husseini, or otherwise. Why is that? How come the ones in Halab were referred to by these titles?

The answer is very simple. These families that held the Niqabah early in their history are the ones who were associated with these titles so early on in biography books. Families like Zahrawis of Halab (unlike their cousins in Homs) and Hamzawis of Damascus were very strongly associated with the position of "Naqeeb Al-Ashraf" very early on, and biographers took that into account. Others were not, and we see their titles surface later. The Zahrawis of Homs did not appear as Sayeds till around Makki's (Khanqah) time. That is when they started competing for the position of Naqeeb Al-Ashraf in Homs. So your statement about Zihrawis of Homs acquiring the titles of sharaf appropriately in the 12th century AD is simply wrong. Those would be the Zihawis of Halab. Their branch in Homs appeared around the second half of the 8th Hijri century (14th century AD), or even before, and were not addressed as Sayeds in books until Makki's time in the late 17th century, 300 years later! This was at the time they started holding the naqeeb position and handing it down through the generations.

Ok, now, back to the Atassis. I agree with you that the title "Sayed" lost its significance in the late ottoman periods. From my research into this, I would put that around the latter half of the 13th Hijri century (mid 19th century). There are exceptions. One is its usage in certain circles where it continued to be given to the Hasemites only, these were the circles of scholars and ashraf. Also, as you mentioned, the title "fakhr Al-Ashraf" and its variants continued to be specific to the Ashraf till the fall of the Ottomans, as well as the titles "fakhr Al-Sadah" and "fakhr Al-Sadat". These were used in the same manner, and remained faithful to the Hashemites till the end.

I don't have many documents that predate Sayed Suleiman because, as I had mentioned before, the more ancient you go, the more difficult it is to recover such documents. Not only that, but given the fact that I left Syria when I was 5 (never to live in it again), that I moved to the US at the age of 16 (and continued to live here ever since), it made it very difficult to uncover old documents. Many of my relatives were reluctant to help out for many reasons. I was regarded as a young man, and I might have come across, somethimes, as somewhat intimidating to older Atassis. Atassis are very proud and, sometimes, stubborn people (sorry).

But what created an even harder obstacle was the fact that I was viewed by some as a stranger or an outsider who lived outside of Homs and Syria for the larger portion of his life. Homsi Atassis knew my grandfather and my father, but not me. I was literally told by some that I have no right to write about the family, given that I had never lived in Homs.

Some thought I was seeking to create problems among the different branches (as the famous Atassis were concentrated in 3 of the 15 branches). Some were just simply not interested, and continue to be so till today, despite my best efforts. Most of the 30 or so documents I have today actually came from no more than 4 or 5 people out of around 3200 existing Atassis. These were the ones who were willing to help me. Not to mention that about 95% of the family's wealth in terms of their ancestors libraries, old manuscripts, and court documents were lost, mostly because of neglect, ignorance and lack of interest, unfortunately. Needless to say, my job was not easy, but I am very passionate about it.

Was Sayed Suleiman the first Atassi to be labeled as Sayed? Was he the only one? No!

If you visit the grave of Ali Atassi (the first), the ancestor of all Atassis, the very first Atassi we know, you will find that the word "Al-Sayed" was engraved on his tomb. His tomb is one of the oldest standing tombs in all of Homs (from the 10th Hijri century, the 16th century AD), owing to the fact that he was buried in the very mosque in which he practiced his scholarly activities.

Other Atassis before Sayed Suleiman and around his time were also called Sayed in documents. I submit to you a court document dated in 1156 Hijri (~1743 AD), with the name of many Ashrafs on it, including Sayed Abdul-Lateef Atassi (the son of Ali Atassi in the makhtoot of Makki and the brother of Abdul-Wahhab who was also mentioned in the same Makhtoot). You will also find the names of two more Atassis, both direct grandsons of Ali Al-Atassi of the Makhtoot: Sayyed Abdul-Raheem Chalabi Al-Atassi and Haj Abdul-Ghaffar Al-Atassi.

http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Abdul-Lateef and Abdul-Raheem Atassi.jpg

In the documents of Sayed Suleiman, his father Abdullah was addressed as "Sayed" as well, and a cousin "Sayed Khalil Al-Atasssi" and his son "Sayed Abdul-Raheem" also appeared.

A document dated in 1185 hijri (1771 D) mentioned three Atassis and labeled them as Sayeds: one in the main text: "Al-Sayed Al-Haj….Chalabi Al-Atassi" (the area in the original document was torn out and we don’t know who this man was), and at the end: "Sayed Othman Al-Atassi" who I think is the uncle of Sayed Suleiman, and the son of Bakeer Atassi, one of the Atassis who were mentioned in Makki's Makhtoot. Also at the end: "Sayed Moahammad Al-Atassi". We don’t know to what branch the latter man belonged or who his father was.

http://www.alatassi.net/images/Othman.jpg

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thanks Bassel for presenting a wealth of refrences.

As for zehrawis. I thought i saw Fakhr al sadah title in Wakfiet Tolaymat family which is probably the oldest in Homs. so correct me if I am wrong.

As for the Sayyed title losing its significance, I will put that arround early and mid 18th century and the proof is your own document

http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Abdul-Lateef and Abdul-Raheem Atassi.jpg

in which many non ashraf were called Sayyeds.

I think having : 1) titles similar to "fakhr el sadah", 2) Heading naqabat al Ashraf, 3) having Husseini always following the surname (tolaymat Hussayni for example) 4) the masses acceptance to Sharif Lineage are all key factors in a claim. 5) haveing lineage or certificats.

All 5 are key to establish the claim.

The word "Sayyed" does not mean anyhting really unless it's written in the context of Ashraf. for example a Naqeeb document.

I am glad that there is a document that refer to Suleiman as Fakhr Al Sadah. which supports your claim but i think that's really where it stops. out of the 5 factors one is only strong. Which is not to say that its not true. After all the prigins are disputed, growing up i heard scores of atassis being proud of turkish descend. They could be wrong..but that surly make it disputed.

I sujjest we agree on a wording that is conservative..what do you think?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I still don't know your name!

No one has ever come up with these five factors before you. Some are true, but they are out of context Sir, you do not dictate what constitute keys to establish the claim of Sharaf.

I see now that you are clearly biased. And I will show you why:

First you claim that only Sayed Suleiman was addressed as Sayed. You acknowledge that this is a valid title for Ashraf at that time. But when I refute your claim that Sayed Suleiman was the only person to be described that way, and show you documents, some older, some in which other Atassis were titled "Sayed", you go back, change your previous "beliefs" and claim that "Sayed" now is longer valid at that time, and you set the time when this title no longer is valid at exact date of these documents!!!!

I tell you that the very first Atassi we know was called Sayed on his tomb stone in the in 16th century AD and you completely ignore that and keep talking about the documents of the 18th century!

You cannot be more biased, sir.

And by the way, no, those who were titled "Sayed" are known Ashraf in that document. And no, I have the Waqf of Tuleimant in front of me and I see no Zihrawi on it. Anyways, I was told by a Homsi historian (whom I respect) that this Waqf is "Madhroob" and that Naeem Zihrawi has a hand in it. I cannot confirm that, and I truely belief that the Tuleimats are ashraf, anyways.

Sir, I am not about to write a lecture about the validity of court documents when it comes to establishing sharaf status. I can give you numerous historcail texts where a historian, a shareef or a naqeeb of Ashraf deemed a family of true sharefian descent despite not knowing their lineage, because they carried ottoman documents that addressed their ancestor as "sayed" (not even fakhr Al-Sadah or Al-Ashraf).

You claim that you need a full lineage to be a Shreef. When I ask you to give me the lineage of Zihrawis of Homs (they don’t know their lineage currently; they lost their tree!) you ignore that. I asked you to give me the lineage of Jaberis of Halab (also were nuqaba in late ottoman period) you also ignore my question. These lost their lineage as well. I asked you to give me the amood of Hirakis in Homs, or the Rifaeis to compare them with what certain authors had said, but you shied away from that challenge.

You make it necessary for a family to have claimed the position of Naqeeb to be of Ashraf class but that is erroneous. The Ashraf families that did not claim such position are way more than the ones who did. That is very well known. Examples are numerous: Abdeens of Damascus, Sibaies, Ashraf, Maharat, and Hashemi/Skaf of Homs, Hariris of Hama....Not only that, when you see Omar Al-Omar saying that Abdul-Razzq Atassi was naqeeb you refute that because Naeem Zahrawi did not want that to happen!

I give you numerous examples of families of Ashraf who were never addressed by the appropriate titles for hundreds of years and whose ancestors biographies never mentioned anything about that.... yet you continue to use that same argument against the Atassis only. I give you historical arguments about why some Ashraf families were more frequently addressed by these titles than others, but you ignore that.

You set time limits to refute anything given to you. I give you a document and you want something older. I tell you Janadalis (and others) for 400 years were not addressed as ashraf, and you don’t care, but you care that there is a laps of about 150 years or a little more between the one document of Ahmad Atassi and those of his descendents Sayed Suleiman/Abdul-Lateef/Othman and use against me the fact that I don't have documents to cover that period.

You tell me some Atassis say that they were Turkish. I know some of these Atassis. This sir, is because of the cultural attacks that targeted my family in the 50s and later, and untill today. This is part of a political campaign. Some of the newer generation were told they are Turkman by their teachers, colleagues, mentors, and others. But if you ask them to tell you why? Who? When? They have no idea. They would not be able to hold a historical conversation with you.

You are here discussing the origins of a family with its historian who is giving you documentations, historical accounts, biographical examples; who has studied the family history for almost 10 years now….. Yet you tell some Atassi (who probably cannot tell you who his/her 5th ancestor was) told you otherwise!!!! I met some of these Atassis and discussed that with them. They have nothing, and eventually they saw my vision.

Sir, I know Hirakis who refuse any claim that there are Ashraf today at all! I know Jandalis who have no idea what their origins are! Should we then conclude that their origins are disputed? That, sir, is a ridiculous argument.

Not only that, I give you a written account by a famous ancestor of the family, a well known Islamic scholar from the ottoman period in Homs, who mentioned that the family is Yemenite in origin as he had heard from his ancestors, and handed down fo hundred of years, father to son. Yet you give me the claims of some contemporary Atassi far removed from scholarly activities, historical interests, and well immersed in today's materialistic word and who cannot back any claims up…..

I am sure if I show you other proofs that you will come up with more restrictions and laws that only you can make.

You say that ashraf have to be called Husseini. Fine. Here is my fourth great grand father Mohammad Atassi "Al-Husseini" Mufti of Homs in an ottoman document from the 13th Hijri century.

http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Mohammad Signiture.jpg

Here is Khaled Atassi "Al-Husseini" the mufti of Homs from the same period in the same document

http://alatassi.net/images/Khaled-signiture.jpg

Hers in Khaled Afandi "Al-Husseini" in a different document dated 1861 AD (1278 hijri).

http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Khaled-Sheikh Zein.jpg

Not satisfied? Here is what the most famous poet of his time, Ameen Afandi Al-Jindi, said about Abdul Sattar Atassi Mufti of Homs (the nephew of Sayyed Suleiman's wife):

http://www.alatassi.net/images/Jindi1.jpg

http://www.alatassi.net/images/Jindi2.jpg

You want more poetry? more indications from the ottoman time of the well established knowledge about the origins of my family? Sure. please visit this link:

http://www.alatassi.net/view.php?action=article&id=90

and read what had been said about Saleh Atassi, Akef Atassi, and Zaki Atassi.

You said that you need titles like "Fakhr Al-Sada", we gave you the Sayed Suleiman documents, but off course you were not satisfied. Want more? Sure, no problem:

http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Abdul-sattar-Bakri.jpg

Want more, sir?

This has been a one-sided discussion. I present evidence and you come up with non-supported restrictions.

Judging by the lack of argument on your part and insistence on your opinion despite evidence presented to you, I am sure more will not satisfy you. I hereby suspend this discussion and revert to editing what I have more qualification to write about than you: my own family. I never had to engage you in any discussion in the first place or present any evidence to you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bassesl,

I am not biased, not at all. I am not defending the claims of the Rifais nor the Zehrawis. Trust me if they were to claim something that does not make sense on an encyclopedia I would do the same thing.

In general, and I am sure that you agree with me here (just forget about the Atassi family for a minute) that the older the designation of the Ashraf the more credible it becomes. What if Hamza, Tulaymat or Ibn Zahra families lost their trees it would not matter as they have been aknowledged as such for nearly 1000 years.

All what I am saying is that the designation is somewhat new, and If you feel that Draki,Sibai, and Zeni is so credible then join the club and be my guest.

As for Sayyed title, i never said it was not valid, all what I said is that its more credible when its mentioned on "Naqeeb" document and not in a realestate titles. and naturaly the more old it is the more valid it becomes. For example, Shiek Zein certification is a naqeeb document and it would have been proper to for the atassi to be Addressed as such but he was not.

Clearly Atassis were addressed as Ashraf at some point and I did not see a harm in pointing out when that actually happened. In acadamic research usually all sides are presented and usually it's left for people to decide on what's valid and what's not.

Finally, I find it appropriate to state the Hashimite designation in this article. But Basel for me to see that you are not biased you will have to aknowleged that Khankah mnauscript did not really associate Abdul Razzak with the Atassi Family. Book AUthors make mistakes (as you mentioned before) and if you atleast can akcnoledge that then we can move forward.

My regards

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sir,

Please do not speak to me about academic research. I provided you with written and authenticated accounts, some of which are several centuries old. All you provided me with is: "I heard this growing up from some Atassis". You could not be farther from "scientific and academic methodology".

Sorry, but we cannot continue until you acknowledge that you are wrong about Sayed Suleiman being the only one who was connected with the Ashraf status, and until you reflect that in your statement. That is because there were several others who were also designated with Ashraf titles:

1) Sayed Ali Atassi (the first), mid 15th century AD

2) Sayed Abdul-Lateef ibn Ali, mid 17th centruy AD

3) Sayed Abdul-Raheem Atassi, late 17th century AD

4) Sayed Abdullah Atssi, late 17th century AD

5) Fakh Al-Sadah Al-Ashraf Sayed Suleiman Atassi, late 17th century AD

6) Sayed Khalil Atassi

7) Sayed Othman Atassi

8) Sayed Mohammad Atassi

9) Omdat Al-Sadah Al-Kiram Abdul-Sattar Atassi: addressed as the "son of prophet Mohammad" and designated as the a shareef and Sayed by several famous scholars of his time such as Jindi and Malloohi.

10) Sayed Moahmmad Atassi "Al-Husseini"

11) Sayed Khaled Afandi Atassi Al-Husseini"

12) Akef Atassi, engraved on his tombstone: "his grandfather the prophet"

13) Zaki Atassi, engraved on his tombstone: "of the prophet family"

And others.

The following statements are not acceptable and will not be included in any version of the article, whether you see that fit, or otherwise:

1) "The family origins are not clear". They are very clear.

2) "Many in Homs including some Atassi family members regard the family to be of turkoman descend".

Irrelevant and not true. Many regard the family as ashraf in Homs and outside it. If some think the family is of Turkman descent then that is not relevant since they cannot back it up against a wealth of historical and legal documentation, as well as written family accounts and traditions, simply said.

3) "in spight of realestate ottoman documents in the mid 18th century clearly referring to Suleiman Atassi As a Sayyed asserting his Arab descend".

Not acceptable because many other Atassis had the same status, as I had proven

Sorry, but will not let you include these statements or similar ones.

The statement: "what I said is that its more credible when its mentioned on "Naqeeb" document and not in a realestate titles. and naturaly the more old it is the more valid it becomes. For example, Shiek Zein certification is a naqeeb document and it would have been proper to for the atassi to be Addressed as such but he was not"

is erroneous.

There is no such thing as a "Naqeeb document". If you could point out who the Naqeeb was in the above document you will prove me wrong. This document was another "court" document, certified by the Judge, the Mufti and witnesses. There were no such thing as "real state" documents. These are also "court" documents, again, certified by the Judge, Mufti and witnesses. They are endowments (waqf) and inheritance documents. They are no different in validity than those that addressed genealogy. They were done the same manner in the same place, by the same people. You need to do some reading about that subject, and I can point out many books for you, in both English and Arabic, that studied Islamic Law Court Registers in Syria and Lebanon.

By the way, you said: "For example, Shiek Zein certification is a naqeeb document and it would have been proper to for the atassi to be Addressed as such but he was not"

I will show you the biass, yet again, in the above statement. Look at the bottom of the document of Sheikh Zein, the one you call "Naqeeb Document". You will read the names of two Zahrawis: Al-Qadhi Badr Al-Deen ibn Al-Qadhi Alaa' al-Deen, and Al-Sheikh Abdul-Nafe' ibn Al-Sheikh Badr Al-Deen. Which one of these two Zahrawis was addressed as Sayed? The answer is: NONE. By your logic, then, I question the origin of the Zahrawis, since this is a so-called "Naqeeb Document" and all Ashraf should have been addressed as Sayeds!!! This is what you call an academic discussion, sir?

Again, you are trying to put restrictions to make things difficult. You want me to present you with documents in which Atassis were addressed as "Sayed" in the presence of Naqeeb Al-Ashraf. I have examples of these documents, but will simply not waste my time uploading them for you because I consider this discussion a lost cause.

Sir, to say that all these scholars (my ancestors and those who certified their status) are liars or people who made uneducated or unauthentic claims, is an insult that I will not take lightly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bassel,

Now let's not waist our times, It's simple if you believe that Abdul Razzak mentioned in the Khankah manuscript sighted by Najeeb Omar is an Atassi then you have zero crediblity. But if you do admit that the reference to Abdul Razzak as an atassi was a mistake then you would have proven your crediblity and i would trust your intentions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So, this is no more than a submission game and an arm-twisting competition, huh? Well, with the above, you just lost all your credibility with me!

could not care less about your view of my credibility, and I am not seeking to gain your trust. As, I mentioned before, you are not the gate-keeper to the hisotry of my family and I don't have to prove anything to you. You are an outsider who obviously has "issues" with us. You can settle your issues somewhere else. As long as I am here, you will not settle them in a public place.

Have tons of time to waste. When you answer all my questions that went unanswered so far, I will address yours. Till then, you are wasting your time. BTW, you will find me participating in other capacities soon....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I am enjoying your intimidating tone, reminds with Mukhabarat of Syria.

Did Khankah mention Abdul Razzak as an atassi, yes or no?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dude, you just got to learn proper English. You just got to, man. This is the third reason you should not be writing here (the first you being historically unread, and the second is having biass against hisotrical families).

I'm glad you are enjoying it. There is a lot more where that came from. ;)

---

This subject is so insignificant that I never felt the need to check my spelling. It’s sad to see how you want to create an illusion and come up with theories that are baseless. I saw writings for claiming that Atassis headed Naqabat Al Ashraf in the ciry of Homs, based on a mistake made by Najeeb Al Omar who based his book on the Khankah manuscript which in turn does not associate Abdul Razzak with Atassis, But I guess you took that mistake and ran with it. We call it in Syria “Falhaweieh” what a shame.

I beg to differ. The topic seems to be of great significance to you, despite the fact that you are not a member of the family. In the greater theme of things, you insist on sentences that are not backed by any historical argument, and are of little consequence in the 450 years of the family history. And even though you admit to the authenticity of the historical arguments I had presented regarding the origin of the family (and despite the belief of my ancestors), you insist on including what you say you heard on the street or “growing up”, as a poorly established historical prelude. Yet, you claim that you are interested in historical facts only…. We call that in Syria: “nifaq and kizb”. That is sad.

BTW, check you grammar as well, not just your spelling, I am sure I make spelling mistakes all the time!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A tombstone is not a court document, which leads to the FACT that Suleiman Atassi was the first to be mentioned in any legal document as “Fakhr el-Ashraf” or Sayyed. The Atassis differ from other prominent Ashraf Families in that the lineage is obscure, all what we know is that it’s a Hussayni, but how? No one knows!! Plus unlike the Atassi family, many have court documents certifying their claim. No one is denying the validity of Suleiman title so stop your paranoia. And again if you are equating the claim to that to the of the Sibais, Draki, etc. so again, I rest my case and you can claim whatever you want.

You keep going in circles and shying away from supporting your claim that Abdul Razzak was an Atassi. No one ever heard of an Atassi Naqeeb until Najeeb Al Omar, mis-referenced the Khankah manuscript which does not really provide for that.

No, Sueliman was neither the first nor the only one to be called Sayed. Will not go through that again. We killed that discussion, as we say in Syria.

Not to mention that there is always a "first" for anything. So if it had been his gradfather Bakeer instead, your silly argument would have been the same.

Not sure how you bring together the statement:

"many have court documents certifying their claim"

and your above ancknowledment of court documents proving that Atassis were regarded as Ashraf.

I would like to see the Tuleimat and Zihrawi lineage. Back up anything you say with something man, just once!! Please, that is

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You said it your self, unlike you I took with evidence and  acknowledged the fact that Suleiman was called “Fakhr Al-Ashraf”. But you want more for your buck. You don’t want to mention that he was the first to be called as such in a legal document (which is true) and you refuse to comment on Abdul-Razzak issue and your erroneous claim that he was an Atassi and headed Naqabat Al Ashraf.

It would be funny if you actually denied what you see!! I mean Sayed Suleiman's title!

What are you trying to prove or insinuate about Sayed Suleiman?? Be franc! What is your point? Say it directly.

Does the fact that I have no access to older document exclude the fact that they existed one day?

Who is the first Zihrawi in Homs to be called "Fakhr Al-Ashraf"? First Jandali? Why does it matter?

What is the lineage of Zihrawis of Homs? Sheikh Zein? Tuleimat?

Only when you answer the questions above I will address your concern.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You keep ignoring Abdul Razzak Issue, and that's 99% of the issue here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I disagree. It is 1%. The stuff you are ignoring is 99%.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Yeah of course you disagree because you don't want to admit Omar Najeeb's mistake. I, on the other hand, did aknowledge that Suleiman was called Fakhr Al Ashraf, but wanted to refrence the period at which this refrence appear on Legal documents and equate that to the refrence of that of Sibais and Draki. I am not inventing anything. If you want to control information, then do that but we will not get to the bottom of this. As for Abdul Razaak, if you realy want to bring credibility to your family Ashraf claim (which is I think is legal) then my advice to you is to let Abdul Razzak issue go to rest and admit that it was a mistake, becasue if anything it hurts your casue and let others like Naem Zehrawi find a loophole in your entire claim.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear, Naeem Zahrawi's work "ma byeswa el-nagli". Could not translate that. Not only that, he was given -by good-will people- many of the documents you saw, and completely ignored them. He mentioned Ameen Al-Jindi poem about Abdul Sattar Atassi in his book but omitted the parts that he did not like. It does not stop here, when I met him 4 years ago and asked him to show me some Atassi documents he had, he did not deliver, probably because they disprove his therories. Then he was caught in a public place saying that Atassis have no business saying they are Homsis as they are not that old in the city!

For you to get anything from me on Abdul Razzak, You will have to admit the following:

1) It is clear that Atassis are Ashraf. There are documents and books and poetry by known scholars that support that.   This means it was common knowledge.

2) You have no idea what the nasab of Zahrawis of Homs or that of Tuleimat is.

3) A family does not necessarily need to claim the post of Naqeeb to be classified as Ashraf. There are many Ashraf families in Homs, and other towns, who did not produce any Nuqaba.

4) Your statement that Sayed Suleiman is the first to be called shareef is baseless, as we don't have many documents that pre-dated him. Thus, such conclusion could not be made.  Also: he was not the only one.  Even if you forget the "Sayed" title for a moment, you cannot ignore Atassis who were labeled as Husseini, or others who were told to be descendents of the prophet.

5) That what you claim you heard from historically unread people is not a valid historical argument that stands.

When you agree with the above, only when you do, you will find me addressing immediately the issue of Abdul-Razzak. Till then, I am one of those stubborn Atassi. In fact, I am the most stubborn of them all. Trust me on the above paragraph. I don't lie.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I will take your word on this, so let's see

For 1: My personal belief is that the Ashraf claim is legal. For 2)I hear that Tulaimat Nasab is available but never looked at it. After all their founding father came to Homs in the 11th Century AD and Have been Akcnowledged as Hussieni from the very begining ( 4 centuries seperate them from Prophet him self). As for Zehrawis, I don't know, but if they are indeed the same as Ibn Zahra then one of the two would suffice. I never saw the lineage. 3) I agree, No need for Naqaba to claim ashraf status. 4)I did not say Suleiman was the first. He is the first that we have record of!!!, The wierd thing is that Makki Manuscript refered to many as Asyad but not the Atassi who he mentioned the most!!! 5)I don't agree with the turkoman desend theory. but still I cannot say that their openion does not count. I have been honest lets see how honest you can be.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I cannot currently prove that Abdul-Razak ia an Atassi, but I cannot dismiss it either, nor can you! I was told that Omar al-Omar came upon a document from the Hama registers, and concluded that Abdul-Razak was an Atassi. It would be strange if he made an assumption without basing it on any source......I cannot confirm that there is a source, as I did not see or study that register. It would not be impossible for an Atassi to become a Naqeeb, as they were recognized as Ashraf. But I cannot confirm that. In fact, it was me who was first to point out that Makki did not refer to him as an Atassi (he did not say what family he belonged to, at all). I mentioned that in an old edition of my book, upon which Zihrawi stumbled and was happy to read! Naeem used it against us, as to say that this is the only evidence we have that we are Ashraf, and it is false to start with!

Not only that, he claimed that this particular Abdul Razak was a Hiraki, because there was another Hiraki called Abdul-Razzak who became Naqeeb 40 years earlier! (which is totally silly).

In terms of the "Sayed" title and Makki's book, you will find him referring to Sibais as Sayeds in that book, and since you are not so keen on them being Ashraf (I believe they are, for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion), then you should not be surprised about he validity of that name in that book. In fact, you will find several other references to personalities not known to belong to the Ashraf class, as Sayeds. On the other hand, he referred to certain ashraf as "sheikh" at times. In addition, he did refer to Khadeejah Atassi as "bint Al-Ashraf"!!!

Again, if you take the book of Ibn Al-Imad, he mentioned no less than 5 different scholars in Homs of the Zihrawis, and not once described any of them as sayed, shareef, or Husseini, or any similar reference. So this is not an uncommon occurrence.

Do I believe that they are Ashraf!! Off course I do. There are court documents that call them ashraf beginning around Makki's time, and that is when they started taking over the Niqaba. They do not know their full lineage today>. That is a fact, because a historian I know well (and trust) is helping them re-build it and uncover the missing links. That means very little to me. They are Ashraf in my eyes, despite all of Zihrawis efforts to debunk our sharaf origin. In fact, their origin was attacked 2 years ago when some people threatened to disprove their Ashraf status in front of me in Homs (Zihrawi made enemies when he claimed everyone is turkman in his book without any proof), and I defended them as Ashraf!

I have no doubt that Tuleimat are ashraf. Are there fishy issues about their sharaf,? Well, you can create "fishyness" around any family, easily. Someone pointed out that despite the existence of so many "Nassabah" at the time of their first Homsi ancestors, and despite so many books written about ashraf of the fifth, sixth, and seventh Hijri centuries, not even one book mentioned their ancestor. Does that matter to me? Not really. But it is a curiosity, and it means that if you hate someone you can point out these fishy issues. I don't use these issue against people, but I use them to defend my arguments.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

sorry for the delay and thank you for the direct and honest answer. I made few changes to your version but nothing significant. I was reading some documents and struck me to see how obvious it is that Tulaimat is simply someone's firt name "Shihab Al Deen" was simply a title, So the person who bulit the famous mosque in 1062 AD was simply Ali Al-Husseini Ibn Tulaimat Al-Hussayni (who in probably lived in late 3rd early 4th century Hijri ). So Tulaimat is "Ism 'Alam" used in Egypt at the time east of the delta arround what's now called Wadi Tulaimat, it seems like to this day many Husseinis live arround that area (Ahmad Orabi AL-hussayni is an example of a Husseni born in that area).

ANy thoughts?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A member of the Tuleimat family e-mailed me about 6 years ago asking about his nasab, but despite my best efforts I was not able to uncover it. It may be that a family member has the tree and is denying others from seeing it. That is the case today with the Sheikh Zein (Barmi) family, most of them don't know their nasab because the original family tree is held hostage by a certain member. However, I was able to get a copy last summer. The document you saw from 1278 hijri with "Sayed Khaled ibn Sayed Mohammad Al-Atassi al-Hussieni"'s signature, is actually a part of that tree, as ratified by the Islamic court of law of that time. The one you saw with Ahmad's Atassi signature from the 984 hijri (300 years earlier) is actually a completely different tree with a completely different nasab, of the same family!! Nothing to write home about, but another example of curiosities.

Anyways, back to Tuelimat family. I took a photo of the Masjed last summer:

http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Pictures%20from%20Syria/Tleimat.jpg

As you can see, Shihab Al-Deen in the poem is a title of Ali. In the Tuelimat Endowment document (if we consider it to be authentic), however, Ali is actually the son of Shihab al-Deen Tuleimat. Shihab al-Deen is usually a title given to those named "Ahmad", but is not always true. Beyond Shihab al-Deen I don't know more than that they are Husseinis.

It would not be surprising if they were related to Urabi's family. Urabi is a descendent of Ibrahim al-Dusooqi's family. The first one of their ancestors to enter Egypt (Cairo) is Hasan al-Anwar, an ancestor of Dusooqi, according to some Egyptian and Palestinian trees. He lived during the time of Abu-Jaafar Al-Mansoor, so probably around the second Hijri century. His progeny multiplied in Egypt and Palestine ever since. They constitute the largest Husseini line in Egypt today. But the family has spread all over Egypt over the centuries, and were not concentrated in one area over many centuries. Urabi's family may have moved to that area recently...

However, Tuleimat family appeared in Homs at least a couple of centuries later (after Hasan Al-Anwar entered Egypt), so it would not be illogical that they are related to that line in some way. But I cannot confirm that. These are no more than guesses.

I said I would be participating in other capacities. Here is what I meant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Al-Atassi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasfi_al-Atassi

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I called somone from the Tuleimat Family and said he has the tree! will let you know if he shares it with me...

The poem states Ali Shihab Al Deen. usually titles come first i.e. Shihab El Deen Ali, I think the Wakfieh Make sense more, (Abu Al Fadael Ali) ibn (Shihab Al Deen tulaimat) Al-Husseini make better sense. I googled Tulaimaطليمه and that returned villages in Egypt and surnames in Palestine. Intereting right?

Nice articles about Wasfi and Khaled, great job.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I would love to see the tree. It would be very interesting to know their nasab.

I am working on other additions, including non-Atassi famous Syrian figures.

Can I ask who you are?

Bassel ibn Ahamd Habib ibn Ziad ibn Khalil ibn Khaled ibn Mohammah Atasi

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Basel

I cannot share my name with you especially because you had attacked me repeatedly ...I know that we came to agree at the end but yet again, you questioned my motives already  which put me in an awkward  position with my other Atassi friends. I know of you and I know many of your cousins and I don’t want to cause senilities. Let’s keep it professional and informative.

Regards