Talk:Sheikh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the article assessment section of WikiProject Muslim scholars, a WikiProject for all articles about Muslim scholars. Note: The project includes non-Muslim scholars of Islam.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of the Arab world WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Additional information:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

can shaikh and khan marry

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

1 Sheik
2 Sheikha?
3 Ethnic Groups / Monarchy / Feudalism
4 Viewpoints
5 View of Sufis
6 created new article and linked it with this one
7 Seven traditional Beiruti families
8 Section on honourifics
9 Sheiks?
10 Merge Discussion

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Seven traditional Beiruti families

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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"^[1]

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)

--- 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)