Submission: Part I

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.

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.

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.

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.