Protesting feminists send underwear to Sheikh

A group of self-styled “underground feminists” calling themselves the ‘Rehendhi’ movement claim to have bombarded Sheikh Ibrahim Fareed with women’s underwear on Valentine’s Day, in protest “against misogyny in Maldivian society.”

A statement from the group was accompanied by pictures of underwear scrawled with statements such as “Make love not war”, “Undies for Fundies”, and “Happy Valentine’s Day Sheikh Fareed”.

The statement condemned the speech ‘With Loved Ones’ given by Sheikh Fareed at the artificial beach in Male’ on 12 January, and stated that “while we do not necessarily promote Valentine’s Day, we will not tolerate messages that [infringe] on our right to celebrate the good things in life like love.”

“We especially will not tolerate the unnecessary framing of women as inherently evil. For example, in his speech Sheikh Fareed criticised men contributing to household chores by ‘running home to buy a fish every time a woman calls’ and implicated them of loving their women more than God.”

The group claimed it wished to remain anonymous “not because we are cowards, but because at the end of the day, we live in a society where the majority is not ready to accept equality between the sexes” and “because we want to be criticised for the issues we take rather than the length of our hijabs.”

undies2The group estimated that between 10-12 women participated in the protest campaign, and said they would continue to “fight the erosion of already scarce liberal attitudes towards women in our society” and “reject overarching and untrue labels such as ‘Americansed’ or ‘Westernised’.”

“We look at our own society and deduce that the suffering of women is directly linked to the strong patriarchal system that breeds harmful prejudices against women, such as their inferiority and servitude to men,” the statement said.

“Sometimes, due to upbringing, formal education and mainstream predominant societal views, women themselves internalise such unfounded and unjustified views of inequality and ‘inherent inferiority’ of women compared to men. We refuse to tolerate any discrimination against women based on Islam and diffuse concepts such as ‘culture.’”

“Our goal is not to negate Quran, Hadith or Islamic principles, but to find women’s rightful place in society in which they can flourish and realise their true potential. We emphasise the fact that many feminists are Muslim women. Working for women’s rights does not mean that one is not a pious and good Muslim.”

Spokesperson for the Islamic Ministry Sheikh Ahmadulla said he would not comment on the issue, as he did not have the authority to give religious advice, but noted that ”according to the law, people have the right to express their opinion.”

undies3President of religious NGO Jamiyyath-al-Salaf, Sheikh Abdullah Bin Mohamed Ibrahim, also said he did not wish to comment as he had not heard Fareed’s speech, but emphasised that Muslims were not allowed to celebrate Valentine’s Day.

”Valentine’s Day is celebrated by Christians,” he said. ”It is a day connected to a god of Christians named cupid.”

Sheikh Abdullah Jameel also said he did not want to comment on the issue directly because he had not heard Sheikh Fareed’s speech.

”Women and men are not equal if you look how they are created,” he said. ”[For instance] only a few women go fishing or do construction work.”

He emphasised that celebrating Valentine’s Day is prohibited under Islam “even if some group tries to deny it.”

Sheikh Ilyas Hussein said he had not heard of the group or their press statement, but also explained that ”celebrating Valentine’s Day is not part of Islamic culture.”

“It’s a day Christians celebrate saying it was the birthday of someone named Valentine,” Sheikh Ilyas said.

Sheikh Ibrahim Fareed declined to comment.

Correction: An earlier version of this article mistakenly attributed comments made by Sheikh Abdullah Jameel to Sheikh Azmath Jameel. Minivan News has rectified the error and apologises for any confusion caused.


115 thoughts on “Protesting feminists send underwear to Sheikh”

  1. Dear Ali, do u know what is jihad? why dont u first get the meaning of jihad b4 opening ur mouth. And in fact i think u r deceived by the Satan and trapped under the secular system. Hehehehehe..LOL...and "YES" we love to comment articles published by minivan news. Cant u digest that. If we want we can write anything we wont on the commentary box. And thr is nothin u can do abt it.

  2. I too believe that Sheikh Fareedh's address wasn't upto the mark... he shouldn't consider women as slaves... Islam emphasizes love not slavery... It is sad that religious scholars like him are not meant to understand that they need to make us understand the moralities of islam rather than picking on small issues like celebrating one's birth day or valentine's day... A pure heart goes through all....

  3. In this issue again the two extremes that battle for the hearts & minds of the Maldivian people are driving the people to the path of destruction both in this life & the life to come in the hereafter. First & foremost this Valentines day thing is a rather minor issue that it need'nt have been raised to this level by both groups. In the post-Maumoon Era people are desperate to experience the 'spiritual' revival of Islam to such a great extent that anybody whose 'beard' is long enough & whose lower garment called 'Izar' in Arabic is short enough is given the title sheik or worse any idiot who can jabber in Arab slang is also given this title. Thus these guys have no real knowledge Of the noble religion of Islam & tarnish the image of Islam as Abdullah Bin Muhammed Ibrahim the son of the founder of the 'Wahhabi/Salafi sect in Maldives did. When he displayed his ignorance in both worldly matters & in the religion. They simply lack the 'Hikmah' wisdom & the correct understanding of the Noble Qur'an & the Prophetic Heritage & the Sunnah. Celebrating 'Valentines day' is NOT from Islamic culture, however these fanatics who only know rehtoric. They also negate Islamic Holidays such as Meelaad Nabee as Shareef (Birthday of the Holy Prophet)(PBUH&HF) & the Ashura which comes in the first Islamic month of Muhhram. Thus they are the 'secularised Version of modernised jadidi Islam. Preached by the 'British agent' Abdul wahhab whose ideology & sect are refuted in Al Fitnathul wahhabiyya of Imam Zaineed Ahlan(alahi rahma). any how there is way & method of preaching & as according to the report when questioned "Sheikh" Ilays said he did not hear Ibrahim Fareed's speech however that is a'LIE' on his part as I saw him myself in the gathering. While amldivian society is rampant with so many un-Islamic practices & beliefs inherited from the Bhuddsit Past, these fools don't have the brains to realise that matters concerning the belief has to dealt with first rather than these in signifiacnt stupid petty issues.Fareed is no scholar hes just a worked up 'phyco-path' My sincere advice to all devoted Bros & Sisters in terrested in the religion there are enough schlors & lectures available on Youtube & other media to choose from rather than the narrow minded extremist Wahhabis.

  4. as for the 'REHENDI' feminists I say you women have deviated from the truth & are caught up in the Satanic freemasonic Global conspiracy which aims to ultemately destroy 'womanhood'. Fareed the deviated off-shoot wahhabi is deviated himself & misleading others concerning the religion of Allah Azza wa jalla.He should fear Allahwith regard to the saying of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) 'the preachers he saw in his accenssion in the Mi'raaj draging their intestines in Hell'!!
    Allah created the woman kind to be the proper companion of man. shes different but eual in both rights & responsibilities in a unique way. Its not emancipation as 'feminits' say to violate women's bodies & expose them to all sorts of sexsual pervertions. To imitate & wear all sorts of satanic fashions ,neither men also has these right. REHENDI ladies look in to the NOBLE BOOK OF ALLAH what he says regard to both men & women. Women in Islam Historically were never 'locked up in the house ' reduced to 'serve' men & as Fareed would have it be 'Production lines in the baby producing factories.' this is fareeds interpretation of Qur'anic Ideal women.' women in Islam were 'liberated in all the sense. Both these extremes take the noble example of the Prophets(PBUH&HF) Khadeeja (A.S.)who spent her life & wealth for Islam & was active in public life & BUSINESS whom allah sent 'salaams' from above the seven heavens Fatima Az Zahraa(A.S.) the purified daughter of the PROPHET(PBUH&HF)who inherited his knowledge & was the mother of Leaders of the Youth of paradise Al Hasan(A.S) & Al Hussain(A.s.) Or Zainab (A.S.) daughter of Ali(A.S.). these are the role models of The women who loved ALLAH not the salaf group & the 'filthy "DOT",who along with Fareed Ilyas & Abdullah love their respective sects & groups rather than Allah & Prophet(PBUH&HF). feminism is just a name that is part of the zionist Masonic conspiracy to dominate the world. Pray that this so called rehendi group comes to its senses. What they did was neither ,moral nor right it was a cheap dirty cowardly act. the consequence would be that they would not achieve any thing. The true role of both liberation & morally upright women lies in true islam & the above mentioned nobles. Fareed & REHNDI both take a lesson.

  5. Praise be to Allaah.

    There is never a man who brings some goodness to this world but he has enemies among mankind and the jinn. Even the Prophets of Allaah were not safe from that.

    The enmity of people was directed against the scholars in the past, especially the proponents of the true call (of Islam). They were met with intense hostility from the people. An example of that is Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him); some of those who were jealous of him regarded it as permissible to shed his blood, others accused him of being misguided and of going beyond the pale of Islam and becoming an apostate.

    Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab was simply another of these wronged scholars who were falsely accused by people, in an attempt to cause trouble (fitnah). People’s only motives for doing that were jealousy and hatred, along with the fact that bid’ah was so firmly entrenched in their hearts, or they were ignorant and were blindly imitating the people of whims and desires.

    We will mention some of the false accusations that were made against the Shaykh, and will refute them.

    Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez al-‘Abd al-‘Lateef said:

    Some opponents of the salafi da’wah claim that Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebelled against the Ottoman Caliphate, thus splitting the jamaa’ah (main body of the Muslims) and refusing to hear and obey (the ruler).

    Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een li Da’wat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahaab, p. 233

    He said:

    ‘Abd al-Qadeem Zalloom claims that the emergence of the Wahhaabis and their call was a cause of the fall of the Caliphate. It was said that the Wahhaabis formed a state within the Islamic state, under the leadership of Muhammad ibn Sa’ood and subsequently his son ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, which was supplied with weapons and money by the British, and they set out to gain control of other lands that were under the rule of Caliphate, motivated by the urge to spread their beliefs, i.e., they raised their swords against the Caliph and fought the Muslim army, the army of the Ameer al-Mu’mineen, with the encouragement and support of the British.

    Kayfa hudimat al-Khilaafah, p. 10.

    Before we respond to the false accusation that Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebelled against the Caliphate, we should mention the fact that the Shaykh believed that hearing and obeying the imams (leaders) of the Muslims was obligatory, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they did not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah, because obedience is only with regard to what is right and proper.

    The Shaykh said in his letter to the people of al-Qaseem: “I believe that it is obligatory to hear and obey the leaders of the Muslims, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they do not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah. Whoever has become Caliph and the people have given him their support and accepted him, even if he has gained the position of caliph by force, is to be obeyed and it is haraam to rebel against him.”

    Majmoo’at Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh, 5/11

    And he also said:

    One of the main principles of unity is to hear and obey whoever is appointed over us even if he is an Abyssinian slave…”

    Majmoo’ah Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh, 1/394; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 233-234.

    And Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez al-‘Abd al-Lateef said:

    After stating these facts which explain that the Shaykh believed it was obligatory to hear and obey the leaders of the Muslims, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they do not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah, we may refer to an important issue in response to that false accusation. There is an important question which is: was Najd, where this call originated and first developed, under the sovereignty of the Ottoman state?

    Dr Saalih al-‘Abood answered this by saying:

    Najd never came under Ottoman rule, because the rule of the Ottoman state never reached that far, no Ottoman governor was appointed over that region and the Turkish soldiers never marched through its land during the period that preceded the emergence of the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him). This fact is indicated by the fact that the Ottoman state was divided into administrative provinces. This is known from a Turkish document entitled Qawaaneen Aal ‘Uthmaan Mudaameen Daftar al-Deewaan (Laws of the Ottomans concerning what is contained in the Legislation), which was written by Yameen ‘Ali Effendi who was in charge of the Constitution in 1018 AH/1609 CE. This document indicates that from the beginning of the eleventh century AH the Ottoman state was divided into 23 provinces, of which 14 were Arabic provinces, and the land of Najd was not one of them, with the except of al-Ihsa’, if we count al-Ihsa’ as part of Najd.

    ‘Aqeedat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab wa atharuha fi’l-‘Aalam al-Islami (unpublished), 1/27

    And Dr ‘Abd-Allaah al-‘Uthaymeen said:

    Whatever the case, Najd never experienced direct Ottoman rule before the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab emerged, just as it never experienced any strong influence that could have an impact on events inside Najd. No one had any such influence, and the influence of Bani Jabr or Bani Khaalid in some parts, or the Ashraaf in other parts, was limited. None of them were able to bring about political stability, so wars between the various regions of Najd continued and there were ongoing violent conflicts between its various tribes.

    Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab Hayaatuhu wa Fikruhu, p. 11; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 234-235.

  6. will complete this discussion by quoting what Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz said in response to this false accusation. He said (may Allaah have mercy on him):

    Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab did not rebel against the Ottoman Caliphate as far as I know, because there was no area in Najd that was under Turkish rule. Rather Najd consisted of small emirates and scattered villages, and each town or village, no matter how small, was ruled by an independent emir. These were emirates between which there were fighting, wars and disputes. So Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab did not rebel against the Ottoman state, rather he rebelled against the corrupt situation in his own land, and he strove in jihad for the sake of Allaah and persisted until the light of this call spread to other lands…

    Conversation recorded on tape; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, p. 237

    Dr. ‘Ajeel al-Nashmi said: … The Caliphate did not react in any way and did not show any discontent or resentment during the life of the Shaykh, even though there were four Ottoman sultans during his lifetime…

    Majallat al-Mujtama’, issue # 510.

    If the above is a reflection of the Shaykh’s attitude towards the Caliphate, how did the Caliphate view the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab?

    Dr. al-Nashmi said, answering this question:

    The view that the Caliphate had of the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab was very distorted and confused, because the Caliphate only listened to those who were hostile towards the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, whether that was via reports sent by their governors in the Hijaaz, Baghdad and elsewhere, or via some individuals who reached Istanbul bearing news.

    Al-Mujtama’, issue #504; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, p. 238-239.

    With regard to Zalloum’s claims that the Shaykh’s call was one of the reasons for the fall of the Caliphate and that the English helped the Wahhaabis to topple it, Mahmoud Mahdi al-Istanbuli says concerning this ridiculous claim:

    This writer should be expected to produce proof and evidence for his opinion. Long ago the poet said:

    If claims are not supported by proof, they are used only by the fools as evidence.

    We should also note that history tells us that the English were opposed to this call from the outset, fearing that it might wake the Muslim world up.

    Al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab fi Mar’aat al-Sharq wa’l-Gharb, p. 240

    And he says:

    The ironic fact is that this professor accuses the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab of being one of the factors that led to the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate, even though this movement began in 1811 CE and the Caliphate was abolished in 1922 CE.

    Op. cit., p. 64

    What indicates that the English were opposed to the Wahhabi movement is the fact that they sent Captain Foster Sadler to congratulate Ibrahim Pasha on his success against the Wahhabis – during the war of Ibrahim Pasha in Dar’iyyah – and also to find out to what extent he was prepared to cooperate with the British authorities to reduce what they called Wahhabi piracy in the Arabian Gulf.

    Indeed, this letter clearly expressed a desire to establish an agreement between the British government and Ibrahim Pasha with the aim of destroying the Wahhabis completely.

    Shaykh Muhammad ibn Manzoor al-Nu’maani said:

    The English made the most of the hostility that existed in India towards Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab and they accused everyone who opposed them and stood in their way, or whom they regarded as dangerous, of being Wahhabis… Similarly the English called the scholars of Deoband – in India – Wahhaabis, because of their blunt opposition to the English and their putting pressure on them.

    Di’aaya Mukaththafah Didd al- Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, p. 105-106

    From these various quotations we can see the falseness of these flawed arguments when compared to the clear academic proofs in the essays and books of the Shaykh; that falseness is also obvious when compared to the historical facts are recorded by fair-minded writers.

    Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 239, 240.

    Finally, we advise everyone who has slandered the Shaykh to restrain his tongue and to fear Allaah with regard to him. Perhaps Allaah will accept their repentance and guide them to the straight path.

    And Allaah knows best.

  7. Dear Hurr, please prove ur comment. dont jus arrogantly accuse someone that they are following certain sect....pls provide ur proof....Sheikh fareed didnt explain any hadiths in his own way rather he explained real authentic first of all go n read quran and Hadiths books of Imam Bukhari and Muslims......!!!! after that open ur mouth....dont try to be smart???? we arent arrogant n coward like u....first u get learned wat islam is n speak later.......cheers dude

  8. Ah, I can't wait to get my hands on those panties. They'll be museum exhibits when the imperialistic arab invaders are finally defeated.

    I can see it now.

    Exhibit 1: Panties sent by the pioneering resistance against the evil Seyku Fareed. Caused 912 Kg of LOL.

  9. Islam condones slavery
    "Its a punishable crime to beat a slave to death, however if the said slave is able to get up and about a couple of days after the beating, then the act is not punishable." This alone lights the true colors of Islam.

  10. I find it worrying that everytime someone attempts to challenge those seeking division, oppression, degradation of women, and fear in our country in the name of Islam, we are labelled infidels christians, heretics, what not. This is the type of intolerance that Islam denounces. What right do these people have to intimidate and tyrannise us to adopt practices we cannot even remotely associate with Islam? Its time the Ministry of Islamic affairs puts a break on the hijacking of Islam in the Maldives by the rapidly mushrooming cults in the Maldives preaching misogyny, fascism, and cultural norms alien to our society, violating the very essence of Islam. Which God religion or prophet are these people following? The more I hear about them and the more I see them the more I am convinced these people worship the Devil as their God to source the inherent evil and darkness that resides in them and which clearly they cannot control. Human beings are capable of extreme good and extreme evil. I see evil here, not goodness.They decry everything that is beautiful and wonderful about the values of Islam. So who are these people, what is their agenda, and why are they not being regarded as a National Security Risk? What is the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, the Ministry of Home affairs and the MNDF doing about these people? And where are our beloved well paid members of parliament while we are being terrorised by the tyranny of intolerant bigotted misogynist fascists invading our country?

  11. Please correct spelling Line 6

    replace break with brake

  12. This is so cool!!!! Im sure the fareed and the rest of the muhllah will enjoyin having the panties....what so unislamic. There is nothing more unislamic than the Muslims!!!! Get over with this islam and all shit!!!

  13. iam ashamed of these maldivian feminists what so eva...these days its embrassing to be maldivians

  14. I wonder what this author would think? Interesting bend on things, but Islam and woman is not something he has commented on:


Comments are closed.