Talk:Sheikh

Shaikh and Khan

can shaikh and khan marry The Shaikh and Khan can marry and have been marrying for more than 13 hundred years. User:Siddiqui

Sheik

I'd like an article on the Americanization of the word "Sheik" to mean a young man who attracts women (and who is irresistable to them). This word was common after the success of the book The Sheik and its film version starring Valentino. It has fallen out of favor nowadays (though Sheik condoms are still available) but was widely used in the 1920s-30s. stan goldsmith 09:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sheikha?

I note that a wife of a Sheikh in one instance has the title Sheikha (see Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned for example). Is this generally true? If this is the custom (I don't know, forgive my ignorance), should it be mentioned in the main article? Bill Jefferys 23:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. A Shaykhah doesn't necessarily have to be a Shaykh's wife (could be his daughter). However, this is only used when the Shaykh is a lord (and not a scholar). ~MK~ 01:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups / Monarchy / Feudalism

As a popular term Sheikh is not related to any of these categories. I want to remove them unless you have strong argument in favor of retaining them? --Abdullah Tahir 16:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Viewpoints

You have added a section in this article (titling it Important Note) that states a Salafi viewpoint. This is not an article about Sufism. Your whole addition was relating to that. The sources you provided were all Salafi in nature. I am not "rejecting a website without sufficient reasons". I'm saying that the website subscribes to the Salafi ideology and so if you want to put the note you had, make sure that it specifically says that the opinion is a Salafi one. In any case, I don't think its relevant here.

Also, I have reason to doubt the site you cited (this may be wrong though). The first note in it relates the position of Imam Shaf'i. It says that the excerpt is from Tablees Iblees which is not a book by Imam Shaf'i but by Ibn al-Jawzee [1]. Also, if you look at the essay titled "Place of Tasawwuf in traditional Islam" (google for it), it says how the sufis which Ibn al-Jawzee refers to are people who disregard the Sharia and think of themselves as some kind of esoteric elite and not the real sufis who are the teachers of Ihsan.

If you still wish to add this not (for "neutrality" as you put it), please mention that it is a Salafi viewpoint that "most" sufis are innovators. --Nkv 13:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. As for talbees iblees, it surely is a book by imam al-jawzi. But it also mentions viewpoints of other scholars. As for the website it may be a salafi website ( i am not sure what you mean by a salafi website) but there is nothing wrong in there. It is not a salafi opinion that sufism is an innovation, but the opinion of all major scholars including the a'ima. Why i wanted to add this here is that people who may not know about islam should know that sufism is not an integral part of islam and is actually a deviant sect that arose. As for anybody who wants to adhere to it can very well do so, but should not relate it with Islam. It is the same as nation of islam, qaadiyanis, ahmadis, duroos etc. Had it been an article about sufism alone, i would not have touched it, so either every reference to islam has to be removed or as a responsible muslim, i should always clear it by adding this mention.

View of Sufis

Some people are adding and deleting the "Important note" about Sufis. I have modified this note as a compromise so that it is acceptable to both sides. Siddiqui 17:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all the Sufi related matter except for a note that it is not completely agreed upon and provided a link to the Sufism article. Detailed analysis here will bloat this article and cause a lot of unnecessary duplication. I have also edited that one to reflect a more balanced and factual (as far as I know) position. --Nkv 18:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Created new article and linked it with this one

i have created a new article and linked it to this one as it was irrelevant to the existing article. I think this makes it more neutral now

I agree. Thanks for doing that. --Nkv 07:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Seven traditional Beiruti families

Are the seven traditional Beiruti families in or out? — Randall Bart ^(talk) 08:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Section on honourifics

Hi. I was a little confused about the section on honourifics, where it refers to Hakim as 'ruler.' My limited knowledge of Arabic told me that Hakim actually means wise (or doctor). I soon found out that both were right, and that it was a difference in the spelling in Arabic (Hākim vs Hakeem). Is there any way we could make this more clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.139.100 (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sheiks?

Osama bin Laden? Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, Omar Bakri Muhammad - Were they Sheikhs? Can this be verified? What entitled someone to be given this title? Officially? I alsi read that he (bin Laden) wanted to become a Mufti? 86.142.186.219 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How about Abu Hamza al-Masri? Many of his followers refer to him using that title. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The entry currently says, "In the Arabian Peninsula, the title is used for royalty, such as kings, princes, and princesses." Maybe so; but it's common in Saudi Arabia for (non-royal) heads of major businesses to be referred to as Sheikh FirstName. What I could never find out in my time in the Gulf is whether this was a formal title awarded in some way (as, for example, the regular ennoblement announcements in the UK) or if it was by some sort of popular usage. I think it's the latter: but that's OR. Cross Reference (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Do not Merge - The Shaikh and the Sufi Shaikh are seperate subjects. The Sufi Shaikhs are small part of huge number of people with Shaikh as the title of thier name. The non-Sufi Shaikh deserve their own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misaq Rabab (talk • contribs) 22:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not Merge - I am in agreement with the Misaq Rabab. As someone who has researched Sufism extensively, the merger of the two is very poor judgment. If you reference the Encyclopedia of Islam, you will see that it discusses the different usages of the term Shaykh. It states that Shaykh is a term that "denotes etymologically “someone whose age appears advanced and whose hair has gone white”, used for a man over fifty years old", yet when discussing Shaykhin the Sufi sense, it states that "In Ṣūfī mysticism , the s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ is the spiritual master"

small> <break> —Comment added by StrangerThings (talk) on 22, April 2008. • —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not Merge - Completely separate subjects. Nonsensical to merge. 86.142.190.100 (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not Merge - Not necessary. Sufi sheikhs are a specific, separate and notable group. User:Leena (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Lebanese sheikhs

hello, regarding the lebanese sheikhs, it is known that the douaihys are the oldest family in zgharta and ehden. they are descendants of the noble French crusador. and first ruler of ehden and zgharta and not daher family so please correct that info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.139.238.42 (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Equitable with Lordship?

Is the title Sheikh equitable with a British lord ranking? It seems many Arab emirs... a title and rank seemingly equitable with that of prince, are addressed as Sheikh. Many princes historically were called 'Lord prince' so this is not necessarily unusual. But just a question.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's exactly the same. The ancient Arab title of "Sheikh" is the precise equivalent of the prestigious and traditional British title of "Lord Prince". You should go ahead and make the necessary changes. This may involve changing the official title of a rather large number of people on Wikipedia to "Lord Prince". But yes, by all means, the Wikipedia community would be very grateful to you if you could please go ahead and make those changes for us. Mardiste (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In the Pakistan region

Look, I don't mean to complain, but could someone whose native language is English please rewrite the following section of the article? This is an encyclopedia. Seriously.

"In the Pakistan region In Pakistan the title is used for a caste (Community) well reputed and respected, mainly involved in business. Many of the popular personalities in Pakistan have been from Sheikhs"

Mardiste (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Female sheikhas

The article incorrectly states there have been very few female Sheikhs in history. This is not true among the Druze; there are plenty of Druze Sheikhas. Why is this article relegated to Muslim scholarship anyway, since there are plenty of Sheikhs who are not Islamic? I believe it needs to be more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.4.42.42 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Sheik"

The usage of The Sheik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see Talk:Ed Farhat -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

my husband is not fist guy when he wake up he ask me to bring coffe and am fisting so what should i do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.138.11 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

False info about Pakistani Sheikhs!

"In Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and other parts of South Asia, the title Sheikh signifies Arab descent.People of Quresh tribe who migrated to South Asia and later adopted meat business are also called sheikh, Qassab or Qureshi"

This isn't true, Sheikh doesn't detonate Arab ancestry in Pakistan, its just a title used by many muslim castes such as Rajputs and Jats who are not of Arab origin. Just like the title Khan does not mean Afghan or Mughal ancestry and is another title. Furthermore, Pakistani's have shown to have little to zero influence from the Middle East and are mostly native converts from Hinduism. This part with no citation was obviously written by a Pakistani. Akmal94 (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ali Khamenei crop.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ali Khamenei crop.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Introduction doesn't include one of the most common usages

The religious usage of the honorific, denoting a Muslim cleric, is one of its most common usages, even more common than as a royal title in many places. Muslim clergyman in Arabia are called sheikhs, and it is a much more common term than "Imam" (which carries a lot more weight). — Preceding unsigned comment added by High surv (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Why

Why 66.85.230.236 (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

English pronunciation

@美好的时光好孩子: The English language pronunciation of "sheikh" is /ʃeɪk/ SHAYK or /ʃiːk/ SHEEK, with /k/, as seen at the reference I added, as well as in other dictionaries. The spelling of "sheikh" does not change this fact. It is commonplace for an English word to contain letters which are not pronounced. (For example, "ghost" or "khaki".) It is also commonplace for an English word to be pronounced very differently from how the word is pronounced in the language it was originally borrowed from. User:美好的时光好孩子's preferred version, "/ʃeɪx/ SHAYKH or /ʃiːx/ SHEEKH", with /x/, is not supported by sources. I ask once again to please provide reliable sources to support your claim, as the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability requires. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Entire purpose of using a diagraph is to make a sound that lacks a letter to meet aforementioned sound. If there will be a template to show pronunciation of the word, then what is the point to put the wrong pronunciation? I haven't heard even a single person who pronounces this word as /ʃeɪk/, other than Google Translate. Everyone, if are not ignorant, uses <kh> as /x/.

Let me give you an example from a language I know; native Turkish speakers who also knows a little about English would pronounce the world "remember as /rəmæmbər/ which is correct as per English phonology, and not as /ɾemæmbæɾ/ which is correct as per Turkish phonology. Because, the word is not Turkish, but is English.

So even Shakespeare couldn't change this fact by saying otherwise. 美好的时光好孩子 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I respect that you and people you know pronounce it as /x/. Wikipedia requires verifiability, which is different from personal experience: Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. I acknowledge your view that /k/ is the "wrong" pronunciation. Reliable sources show that is not the case, as seen the citations to English dictionaries.

It is normal for loanwords to have an established English pronunciation different from the pronunciation in the source language. An example is karaoke – compare the English and Japanese pronunciations. Similarly, this article gives the English pronunciations followed by Arabic pronunciations. Note that I am not disputing [x] in the Arabic IPA. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Improving page

It would be useful to incorporate the terms for female sheikh in the top description Scientelensia (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shaik (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)