Mr. Sanctions

Behind the Screen Door: Why are Islamic Names so hard to match?

The prompt:

What are the most prominent sanctions screening challenges for Islamic personal names, and how are these addressed by current software and data solutions in the market? If there are notable challenges that are more prominent for male names, or female names, list and explain them. If there are notable challenges specific to transaction screening, list and explain them. Provide a source list (with URLs in parentheses) but do not produce citation markers within the response.

The response:

Prominent Sanctions Screening Challenges: Islamic Personal Names

Screening Islamic personal names for sanctions compliance presents unique linguistic and cultural challenges. These difficulties often lead to high rates of “false positives” (incorrectly flagging innocent individuals) or “false negatives” (failing to catch sanctioned entities).

1. General Screening Challenges

These challenges apply broadly across Islamic naming conventions, regardless of gender.

  • Transliteration Variability (Romanization): The most significant challenge is converting names from Arabic script (or Persian/Urdu) into Latin characters for Western watchlists.
    • Vowel Ambiguity: Arabic script often omits short vowels. A name like “Mohammed” can be validly transliterated as Mohamed, Muhammad, Muhamed, Mahomet, etc.
    • Letter Substitution: Certain Arabic sounds have no direct English equivalent. The letter Qaf might be transliterated as ‘Q’, ‘K’, or ‘G’. For example, Qasem vs. Kasem vs. Gasem.
  • The “Mohammad Bias” (Frequency Noise): The name Mohammad (and its variants) is the most common given name in the world. In sanctions lists, it appears frequently as a first name or part of a patronymic chain.
    • Challenge: Simple exact-match or loose fuzzy-match logic often triggers thousands of false positives because the name is so ubiquitous.
  • Complex Naming Structures (The Chain of Names): Unlike the Western “First-Middle-Last” format, traditional Islamic names often follow a chain:
    • Ism: Proper name (e.g., Ali).
    • Nasab: Patronymic chain indicating lineage, often using bin or ibn (son of). (e.g., Ali bin Ahmed bin Saeed).
    • Nisba: Adjective indicating origin, tribe, or affiliation (e.g., Al-Masri = “The Egyptian”).
    • Challenge: Western systems frequently mistake bin Ahmed for a middle name or Al-Masri for a surname, failing to match when the components are reordered or when bin is dropped.
  • Honorifics and Titles: Titles are often embedded into the name string and can be mistaken for part of the name.
    • Examples: Sheikh, Hajji, Sayyid, Imam.
    • Challenge: If a sanctions list includes “Sheikh Yassin” and a customer is onboarded as “Yassin” (without the title), a strict system might miss the match. Conversely, treating “Sheikh” as a first name causes false alerts against anyone with that title.

2. Gender-Specific Challenges

While many challenges are shared, distinct issues affect male and female names differently.

Challenges More Prominent for Male Names:

  • Use of Kunya (Technonyms): Men are frequently referred to by a Kunya—a name meaning “Father of [Eldest Son’s Name]”—rather than their legal given name.
    • Example: Abu Mazen (Father of Mazen).
    • Challenge: Sanctions lists often designate terrorists or political figures by their Kunya (nom de guerre). If a bank screens only the legal name (Mahmoud Abbas), they may miss the alias Abu Mazen.
  • Nasab Chains: The patronymic chain (bin X bin Y) is prevalent in male names and often leads to truncation errors where the grandfather’s name is mistaken for the surname.

Challenges More Prominent for Female Names:

  • Teh Marbuta (Feminine Suffix) Transliteration: Many female names end with the Teh Marbuta character (ة), which denotes femininity.
    • Challenge: When transliterated, this can be written as an ‘a’, ‘h’, or ‘ah’. For example, Fatima vs. Fatimah. This inconsistency frequently breaks exact-match algorithms.
  • “Umm” (Mother of) Titles: Similar to the male Abu, women may be known as Umm [Son’s Name].
    • Challenge: Screening systems that do not account for “Umm” as a title rather than a name component may fail to match against lists using the legal name.
  • Maiden vs. Married Names: In many Islamic cultures, women traditionally retain their father’s family name after marriage rather than adopting their husband’s.
    • Challenge: Western compliance systems often assume a “maiden name” field is necessary or that a name change has occurred post-marriage. Incorrectly forcing a husband’s surname onto a female customer can lead to a data mismatch against sanctions lists that use her legal (father’s) surname.

3. Transaction Screening Challenges

Transaction screening involves monitoring payment messages (like SWIFT/ISO 20022) in real-time. Specific challenges for Islamic finance include:

  • Religious Terminology False Positives: Transaction description fields often contain religious terms that fuzzy matching algorithms mistake for names of sanctioned entities or groups.
    • Zakat / Sadaqah: Terms for charity. Can trigger false positives against entities with similar names (e.g., Al-Zakat Foundation).
    • Hajj / Umrah: Pilgrimage terms. “Hajj” is also a title (Hajji) often found in sanctioned names, leading to stops on payments simply labeled “Savings for Hajj.”
    • Eid: Festival names (e.g., Eid Gift) can trigger matches against individuals named Eid.
  • Compound Tokens in Institution Names: Islamic financial institutions often use compound names that get broken apart incorrectly.
    • Example: Islamic Bank of [Country].
    • Challenge: Generic words like “Islamic” or “Bank” are high-frequency. If the screening software does not treat the institution name as a single entity, it may flag the transaction based on partial matches with sanctioned banks containing those generic terms.

4. Current Software and Data Solutions

The market has shifted from simple “fuzzy matching” to more sophisticated AI and culture-aware approaches.

  • Culture-Sensitive Algorithms: Advanced software now includes specific logic for Arabic naming conventions.
    • Solution: These tools can identify and ignore “noise” words (like bin, al, abu) during matching or treat them as connectors rather than core name parts. They can also recognize that Mohammed and Mohd are equivalent.
  • Multi-Script Screening: Instead of relying solely on Latin transliteration, newer solutions screen names in their original Arabic script against the original script versions of sanctions lists.
    • Solution: This bypasses the transliteration ambiguity entirely (e.g., matching محمد directly to محمد).
  • Secondary Identifier Matching: To combat the “Mohammad Bias,” systems now weigh secondary data points (Date of Birth, Nationality, Location) much more heavily.
    • Solution: A match on the name “Mohammad Ali” is automatically discarded by the software unless the Year of Birth or Country also matches, reducing manual review volume.
  • AI & Entity Resolution: Machine learning models are trained on vast datasets of name variants to predict valid matches.
    • Solution: These models “learn” that Fatima and Fatimah are the same entity without needing hard-coded rules, and they can distinguish between a person named Hajji and a payment reference to a pilgrimage.

Source List

Leave a comment