Submission: Part I

Some movies are not nice. This is one of them. It is about sincere woman, faithful to their religion, but treated bad by the system.

This movie was the reason, it's maker, Theo van Gogh, has been slaughtered, by someone not able to communicate in a civilized way, but driven by an evil spirit.

Submission part I is strongly recommended to all woman, and those men who are strong enough to accept that men can show (collective) brutal and repressive behaviour.

The movie might be offensive to some people, as a woman's breast is shown behind a veil. This is not done in an erotic way.

This movie can explain more, than an entire book could do. A must see.

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.

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.

It is hard to speak about the state of women in Islam without being told to keep quite,sometime the ultimate price has to be paid.That is the nature of this film. It may not make for friends but it gets things in the open so that changes can take place so human rights can be respected. There have been very few films about Islam as a religion.I do not know of any about the human right tragedy in the Sudan.I wish to see more films about Islam but am afraid that filmmakers will be leery after this.That is why I hope that filmmakers will not be afraid of death threats,because information about Islam is needed especially since 911.WE must realize that the Dutch are very tolerant and that this atheist filmmaker did have a right to make films that is the bottom line.I hope that the film will energize Islamic men to correct abuses as much as they can.

Are there laws in Denmark against beating women? In most civilised countries, there are. This is what Hirsi Ali was expressing: that women are often abused in Muslim households and are often powerless to stop it. You may consider it blasphemous to fight for women's rights, but Hirsi Ali would disagree.

You call it propaganda... So is the Diary of Anne Frank (or any other book written about a person's experience) propaganda? It, like Submission, also describes the experiences of one person, as they experienced the world. Submission is an expression of what Hirsi Ali has seen/experienced. You insult yourself when you say it is generalising about all Muslims because nowhere in the film does it say every Muslim abuses every woman. Does every piece of work always have to represent everyone? If I write a play about a Dane, does he have to represent all Danes? If he commits a crime, are all Danes criminals?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (www.vpro.nl) has lived in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya. In my opinion, she understands what goes on in Muslim countries better than someone in Denmark. Furthermore, this piece is a combination of what happened to many women she encountered as well as herself. There were a few people who thought that Ms. Ali knows nothing about Islam. If you know anything about her, you would inevitably disagree. I commend you, gentlemen for not beating your wives... and ladies who are able to work in Egypt and other Muslim countries. In fact... I think you should write a play glorifying Islam's treatment of women (and hope you don't get stabbed). I just want to know why you think your experiences are representative of everyone else's in the Islamic world?

To conclude... even if Ms. Ali is lying, making up stories, etc., in Holland/Western Europe, she has every right to do so. If you are offended by it, change the channel. If you think this is the first time a piece of film misrepresented a people... go watch a Country Western, observe the savage Indians hopping around on horses, making bird calls. However, no one seems to raise their voice about how Native American culture is 'misrepresented' or try to stab John Wayne in broad daylight on a busy street.