Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ modesty

Today’s Jesus and Mo comes with an explanation:

Today’s comic inspired, in part, by an article in The Beast about a Playboy interview with a hijab wearing young woman. There are a lots of ironies on display here, and this comic focuses on just one.

We’ve talked a lot lately about Muslim veiling and its reprehensible celebration by Regressive Lefitsts, and this is the topic of the the Daily Beast article by Maajid Nawaz. An excerpt:

White religious-conservatism is not often celebrated or glamorized by American liberals and progressives, it is derided. But switch up white Amish or Catholic notions of modesty with brown Muslim ones, take a fashion shoot complete with a graffiti-ridden backdrop, and presto: brown religious-conservative attitudes about hiding the female form in the name of modesty become… progressive.

. . . The assumption made by some liberals is that the “authentic” Muslim woman is the hijab-wearing one, while non-hijabis are seen as Westernized, inauthentic Muslims. Likewise, the religious-conservative Muslim assumption equates concealing the female form to “modesty,” as if a woman who shows her hair or reveals her figure is somehow immodest.

This is a not-so-subtle form of bigotry against the female form, and it has real consequences, including rising social-conservative attitudes across Muslim communities around gender and sexual freedom. In too many instances across Muslim-majority societies, including those embedded in Europe, this “modesty theology” has led to slut-shaming of women who do not cover. Worse yet, it can lead to so-called honor killings.

It’s a must-read article for those who frequent this site. And Mo has donned a burqa in solidarity:



  1. GBJames
    Posted September 28, 2016 at 8:39 am | Permalink


  2. Randall Schenck
    Posted September 28, 2016 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    Very fine post. And along those same thoughts from Nawaz, recall just yesterday from the debate, Hilary called out Trump for his remarks on the beauty contest winner some years back, calling her a pig and saying she put on 50 pounds (a lie)and so on. That is also getting a lot of play on the news today.

    • eric
      Posted September 28, 2016 at 9:01 am | Permalink

      And his response? A complete nonsequitur that simply reinforced his sexism rather than apologizing for it or even explaining it. ‘I may say lots of mean things to Rosie O’Donnell, but she said lots of mean things about me first.’ Um…that has *what* to do with your beauty pageant comments?

      Immediately after the debate, my opinion was that both sides were going to feel that their candidate did well. But Trump has kept whining about the debate and is now claiming he went easy on Hilary on purpose. Which IMO means Trump thinks he lost the debate, even if his followers think he won it. People who think they won don’t make excuses for their performance.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted September 28, 2016 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

        The last complaint I heard this morning from Trump was they had his microphone turned down and Hilary’s was much louder. I suspect the answer is, no, it was more about what was coming out of your mouth.

    • Flemur
      Posted September 28, 2016 at 9:48 am | Permalink

      A lawyer for a man who was shot outside a church in November said Friday that Alicia Machado, 21, was seen driving the car in which her boyfriend sped away from the scene of the shooting.

      “Our accusations against Alicia Machado are based on coinciding testimony from witnesses, who place her in the vehicle in which Juan Rodriguez fled the scene,”

      Machado created a stir when she reportedly gained more than 35 pounds after her 1996 crowning in Las Vegas.

      A Venezuela judge said Thursday a former Miss Universe threatened to kill him after he indicted her boyfriend for attempted murder.
      Venezuelan beauty queen Alicia Machado threatened “to ruin my career as a judge and … kill me,” Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor said on national television.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted September 28, 2016 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

        Sounds like Donald better get some additional security.

  3. eric
    Posted September 28, 2016 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    There is a short film (Australian, I believe)that uses the exact same concept. It is truly excellent and worth viewing, if some other reader can find a link for it. It follows a ‘traditional’ Muslim couple living in the west, where the woman wears a burkha and the man dresses in western suits. But both find they are getting unwanted attention when they go out in public – the man gets catcalls and inappropriate remarks from his female co-workers because he is good looking, the woman gets nasty looks because of her burkha. And while I’ve already given away how they resolve the problem, its still worth watching.

    • Rita
      Posted September 28, 2016 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      I watched that video, and my reaction was, “so, what’s the point?” That he should wear the burka and she shouldn’t? And, BTW, it wasn’t only the women in his office who were coming on to him.

    • Posted September 30, 2016 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

      The men should cover up as well because they can also get sexually harassed not just uncovered women

  4. Heather Hastie
    Posted September 28, 2016 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    It both amazes and disgusts me that so many so-called liberals celebrate the hijab. Both women and men should be able to wear whatever they want, but too many are either lying or in denial when they say hijab, or worse burqa or niqab, are their choice. Imo it’s often a form of Stockholm syndrome.

    Non-hijabi women can make the choice to wear hijab easily; the reverse is rarely true. Until there are no countries or religions that mandate certain clothing for women for everyday wear, I will not consider the wearing of that clothing a genuine choice. Further, what women wear should be their own decision and not dependent on the opinion of their husbands, parents, or religious leaders.

    And I haven’t even started on the whole topic of associating clothing with morality. However, it should be enough to remind people that what a woman is wearing is no longer considered a mitigating factor in rape and that, after all, is where the whole clothing/morality debate leads.

  5. Posted September 28, 2016 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    It is a ridiculous rationalization of Stockholm syndrome, or, at the very least, attempting to make a virtue of necessity.

  6. Kevin
    Posted September 28, 2016 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Great Jesus n’ Mo. Looks like the mountains of Flagstaff.

    Hijab lovers move away from oppression to individuation. Let me remind the deluded women who think of this has a personal statement: The Mohawk Principle.

    The Mohawk Principle is simple. Get a mohawk. You will be different. You will look different. People will notice you, whether you speak or not. It takes no effort.

    Contrast that to, for example, swimming two lengths of the pool faster than anyone in history. You will be noticed. Did it take effort? More than most hijab wearers could ever appreciate.

  7. Posted September 30, 2016 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    The Burka is just sexist I mean men should cover up as well not just women so yeah its just sexist

  8. Posted September 30, 2016 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    “The assumption made by some liberals is that the “authentic” Muslim woman is the hijab-wearing one, while non-hijabis are seen as Westernized, inauthentic Muslims.”

    I think that liberals are probably right here: a Muslim-heritage woman adopting the Western dress code is likely to be Westernized also in other respects, to be Islam-doubting, heretic, agnostic or outright apostate; while a Muslim-heritage woman who covers is likely to be a true believer (or at least controlled by a male true believer, as she should be).

    I think, however, that it is good for Muslims to be Westernized and inauthentic. This of course has a lot to do with my dislike and fear of Islam, but I prefer also inauthentic Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.

    Prof. Coyne has written about some Muslim university students who wanted hijab to be banned in university, because otherwise relations would shame them into wearing it “as good Muslims”. I think these young ladies wanted to have their cake and eat it too: to dress in a Western way and still have the social approval alotted to “good Muslims”. They reminded me a former Jehovah’s Witness who wrote how he felt when his child needed a blood transfusion: as he was refusing the procedure, he was secretly hoping that authorities would mandate it anyway.

    At some point, the believer stands ready to make a leap, which he will either make or recoil to everyone’s misfortune; and this leap requires great courage.

  9. zytigon
    Posted September 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    Wearing a hijab is in effect saying that you expect Islam to be ineffective at getting its followers to behave in a way that respects other peoples wishes & is orderly, civilized and compliant with regulations.

    If there really was a supernatural realm which could intervene in the real world then there would be no need for a hijab or any clothing to hide sexuality, its followers would be empowered to be faithful to their spouse ( if that was what was required )

    Even if you thought an Islamic legal system with its harsh punishments for disobedience was worth something then why would wearing a hijab be necessary ?

    In Monty Python’s, ” Life of Brian” Terry Jones played Brian’s mother and even though he looked & sounded very unfeminine & was wearing a hijab the character still got raped by a Roman soldier. I think this sums up the situation quite well: that the hijab doesn’t achieve its intention. This could be because there is no way to say how other people will react to the hijab. It could be that the hijab allows others to imagine the woman wearing it to be more attractive than she is and so more tempting.

    For a while in my life I was quite taken by the idea in Romans chapter 8 where Paul (or which ever ghost writer ) has the idea that Christians would not be like slaves subjected unwillingly to a law but rather fully desiring to be led by a spirit of God which would enable the person to lead a superhuman life. However it didn’t work for me or the people around me who labelled themselves Christian. Richard Dawkins was correct in calling it the God delusion.

%d bloggers like this: