Submission: Part I

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.

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.

A lot of muslims were offended by this movie. But it is not about the Islam in general. Van Gogh was not a Islam hater or a racist. Read his books. He was a provoker and he was an atheist with a sharp tongue and a advocate for freedom of speech but that was it. He was a clown but he sometimes overdid his act so a lot of people were offended. He did offend people, don't get me wrong. But I found a lot of his pieces amusing and I think he wanted people to see the relativity in things.

In this movie is not show how bad the Islam is, but how men can use the Islam as an excuse for their deeds. That is what Ali en Van Gogh were fighting for and don't give me that crap about the somalic background of Ali. It still surprises me how many people just don't see this and still think they wanted to offend a complete religion. It is just like how Ali said herself. She said something like that no matter how you formulate, when it comes to Islam (or any religion) they will always find it offensive.

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.

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.