Everything was there. The Parisian setting, international ambition, carefully curated panels, and impressive figures from a rapidly growing market. And above all, this carefully crafted narrative of a fashion that would unite, include, and transcend cultural boundaries.

But behind this staging of consensus, a simple question arises: what are we really talking about?

For “Modest Fashion” is not a floating concept, nor a mere aesthetic abstraction. It was born in specific contexts shaped by social, cultural, and religious norms — those of Islamist rigorism — which define what the female body should, or should not, be in public space.

Islamist, then — this fashion week is now in its 11th edition. Yet it is the first time it has been held in Paris. Designers from Nigeria, Qatar, and the United Kingdom stood out with shows marked by strong identities: sophisticated bridal gowns from Dahlia Bridal, African inspirations from Afrik Abaya, and luxurious, minimalist touches from Hindami. And, amid trendy hijabs, loose silhouettes, layering, and diverse cultural influences, brands such as La Modesa and Miha presented varied, elegant, and contemporary collections — all sharing the distinctive feature of being “Sharia-compliant”!

Yet this very reality is precisely what the organizers of Modest Fashion Week — and the brands participating in it — seek to dissolve within a pseudo-inclusive discourse.

Nothing is named anymore. Everything is suggested, softened, reframed, diverted — Orwellianized — until one succeeds in universalizing what is, in fact, a highly sectarian trend.

Thus, what was once a restrictive and rigorist particularism becomes not only global but also emancipatory. What belonged to a religious normative framework becomes just another stylistic option. What could be debated is neutralized through the injunction of inclusion.

The sleight of hand is clever. Successful. Relentless.

We speak of inclusion, yet what is displayed is a remarkably homogeneous aesthetic. We invoke diversity, yet celebrate clearly identifiable codes: length, looseness, layering — ultimately designed to conceal the female body. We claim freedom, yet sidestep the constraints that have historically and ideologically shaped such “choices” in dress.

Uniformity here wears the clothes of pluralism.

And to complete this Orwellian construction, the economic argument seals the debate: billions of dollars, sustained growth, a global market in full expansion. As if financial power alone could confer artistic legitimacy — as if numbers could absolve ethical concerns.

Even more troubling is the appropriation of broader contemporary fashion trends. The taste for volume, layering, fluidity — developments shared across the entire fashion industry — are here reinterpreted through a single lens: Islamist rigorism.

What is at stake is not merely fashion. It is an ideological normative diktat, disguised as a clothing trend. An artistic mask, then, making acceptable what would otherwise provoke at least debate, if not indignation.

This is not, of course, about denying this fashion, its existence, or anyone’s right to identify with it. It is about refusing confusion: refusing that the universal be declared from the particular; that inclusion serve as a smokescreen for repressive uniformity; that debate be dissolved into a mass of hollow concepts paved with good intentions and/or false naivety.

Because, ultimately, the issue is not sartorial. It is ethical and intellectual. And it can be summed up in one line: when everything is deemed equal, nothing is open to discussion.