Did Saudi Arabia Reject Pakistani Diplomat because his name translated to “biggest d*ck”?

In what sounds like a case of diplomacy meets dark humor, reports have resurfaced claiming that Saudi Arabia rejected a Pakistani ambassador due to an unfortunate name translation in Arabic. The diplomat in question, Mian Gul Akbar Zeb, is said to have faced rejection because his name, when transliterated, allegedly carries an NSFW meaning in Arabic, namely “the biggest d*ck”.

However, the accuracy of these claims remains contested. While the story has been widely shared over the years, Foreign Policy previously quoted Akbar Zeb himself denying the reports, casting doubt on whether this linguistic blunder actually played a role in his diplomatic assignments.

A Seasoned Diplomat, A Lingering Controversy

Akbar Zeb is no stranger to international relations. Having served as Pakistan’s High Commissioner to Canada and ambassador to South Africa, his extensive career spans postings in Washington, New Delhi, and other diplomatic hubs. With decades of experience, he has been involved in major global discussions—yet his name, rather than his credentials, seems to attract the most attention.

According to older reports, similar objections to his name had allegedly been raised by the UAE and Bahrain. However, with Foreign Policy citing his denial of such claims, it remains unclear whether these rejections were based on actual diplomatic concerns or simply an urban legend that refuses to die.

Fact or Fiction? The Lingual Pitfalls of Diplomacy

This episode—true or not—raises a curious question: How much do linguistic interpretations influence diplomatic decisions? Could a name alone really be a deal-breaker in international relations? And if so, would Western nations reject a diplomat whose name carried an awkward meaning in English?

Names lost in translation have long provided comic relief in global affairs, but should they be a serious obstacle to diplomacy? Whether or not Akbar Zeb truly faced rejection due to his name, the persistence of this story suggests that in international politics, even linguistic quirks can take on a life of their own.