Submission: Part I

Submission is a 10-minute film in English directed by Theo van Gogh and written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a former member of the Dutch House of Representatives for the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy); it was shown on the Dutch public broadcasting network (available on YouTube). The film's title is a direct translation of the word "Islam".

The film tells the story of four fictional characters played by a single actress wearing a veil, but clad in a see-through chador, her naked body painted with verses from the Koran. The characters are Muslim women who have been abused in various ways. The film contains monologues of these women and dramatically highlights three verses of the Quran,(4:34 2:222 and 24:2) that authorize mistreatment of women, by showing them painted on women's bodies.

It is a political statement and indictment of those countries that allow honor killing to go on despite laws against them.

It's actually funny how some people here ( Muslims ) go all out against this movie for all the wrong reasons. This movie is about how some men abuse their religion. Not about how the religion abuses women. This problem exists in all religions because some people are just plain bad people, whether they are Muslims or not. This short movie was made to address that specific problem. In the 80's/90's there were a lot of movies about Christian ( or at least white ) women being raped of abused. At the time people didn't say ..."ohhh all Christian men abuse women". NOR should they say that no one does this. The same goes about this movie. I work around a lot of Muslims and yes i find it a very honourable religion but there are always people that don't allow their woman to talk and other strict rules. So why do people here overreact? Because people think their religion is flawless and every Muslim is a good Muslim... and that was what this movie was made for, to show people CAN be bad too in any religion, but no one dared to say it because of fear of being called a racist. He dared ( even though he did go a bit too far sometimes) and paid the price for it. Try to keep an open mind en learn from the movie.

I think many of you are confused as to why Ayan Hirsi Ali decided to write this film and what she believed it would do for Muslim women. It is no secret that all religions seem to have a flaw within them. They also have a tendency to leave women out and treat them as unequal. I happen to be married to a practicing Muslim man who lived in Egypt until he was 10 years of age. We are newly weds and currently live in the united states while I finish school. I can truly say that many Muslim men don't beat, and abuse their wives. In fact a large portion love them to death. However, Don't TELL me that Islam doesn't condone honor killings.

Ayan Hirisi Ali's point was that honor killings are occurring in nations where police forces and governing bodies are at large. They are taking place in overly tolerant nations that have become morally blind. This I believe is a misplaced respect. You should not be allowed to shoot your daughter or slit her throat because she's wearing eye shadow and talked to a Christian boy. Progressive western nations such as Holland, Germany and the UK weren't punishing these "honor killers". In many cases they even received reduced sentencing for things that the nation deems unacceptable behavior. Ayan Hirsi Ali wanted to put a stop to that.

what better way than a film. Film is one of the most powerful ways of evoking a response out of a group of people. Once initial shock is over action hopefully takes place. Thats what Ms Hiris Ali desired. Now All of these western civilizations are scrambling for an answer. London is cracking down on their police force and training them to deal with honor killings. Holland is implementing legislation on protection of Muslim women, and Germany is discussing new integration laws.

The point is she opened this topic up before the world through the majesty of film. The power of art, written word and human voice combined. She had been fighting for this cause for awhile however before the film submission little had been done.

I read one comment earlier and this is my response to them - I don't believe Ayan Hirsi Ali wrongly executed her quest for better treatment of Muslim women by seeking out Van Gogh. Politically it was a brilliant choice. She was not trying to evoke a response from Holland's male Muslim population she was trying to reach the rest of Holland. So by having the controversial Van Gogh direct was a great idea. ( If You think she was actually going to change a conservative Muslim's opinion on honor killings through a 12 minute film than your being naive. Van Gogh was respected and admired by thousands. She wasn't trying to change Islams views. She was trying to awaken the rest of western europe. Think about it. It was well thought out.

My thanks for posting my comment and I hope everyone finds something they can draw out of it. I really have enjoyed the comments from all.

For most of us, the worst thing that could happen after making a movie is complete commercial and critical failure. For Ayyan Hirsi Ali, it is death. And after her director and co-producer, Theo Van Gogh, was murdered late last year, this is a very real possibility. Their courage and conviction to be heard (no matter how controversial the opinion) is an inspiration to me. That being said, I'll attempt to defend controversial films on a more general level: I have never seen a movie that has literal changed my lifestyle, and don't think it is even possible. We are bombarded with too much information for something as short and singular (no matter how visceral) as a movie. But what they can do is begin the process of thinking, and evaluating our own lives. So regardless of whether or not you agree with a film, if it gets you thinking about a particular issue, then you should consider it a success. Thank you for your time. Take care.

The murdering of Van Gogh proves the value of the movie. It proves that there are Muslims out there that behave just like the movie tells us. The reactions of several Muslims in other comments here at IMDb also prove the value of he movie. They show that no comments are allowed to be made about Islam, any comment, any critique, is bad and evil and is considered (by Muslims) to be offensive to Muslims.

Islam is a totalitarian religion, Muslims are totalitarians. They accept no comments on their ways, on their religion. They respond with violence, with death threats, with loud protests. They do that over and over again, like they did against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, like they did at the time of the Danish cartoons. They can't control themselves, it seems.

They use the Qurân to show they are right for using violence. Suicide bombings bring Muslims to heaven. Killing Theo van Hogh brings the Muslim who killed him to heaven. A Muslim who would kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali (or Salman Rushdie) would go to heaven. Hitting disobedient wives is allowed by the Qurân. Killing non-believers (heretics) is allowed by the Qurân.

They? Not all of them. Indeed. But too many do.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh are heroes for making this movie.