That’s a really unfair generalization. Not all Muslims ignore these issues infact many openly speak out against…
Quoting verses like, "If they incline to peace, then incline to it also” or "Fight only those who fight you” misses the bigger picture. The issue isn’t the isolated wording of the verse, but how it has been interpreted and applied for centuries. Classical scholars and rulers used these lines to justify laws on jizya, apostasy, and blasphemy, which clearly weren’t peaceful in practice. Context cannot erase the fact that these verses became the foundation for legal and political norms that governed real people for centuries.
Saying “violence is only permitted to stop aggression” ignores a critical reality: aggression was often redefined to include disbelief, criticism or leaving the faith itself. If walking away from a religion is treated as “corruption on earth,” this is not peace, it is coercion disguised as morality. Mercy verses like 9:6, which instruct protection for those seeking the message, do not cancel the prescriptive or coercive verses. Those who highlight only compassionate passages ignore how scripture shaped laws, punishments, and hierarchies over time.
Comparisons to the Bible or Vedas do not strengthen the defense. While Old Testament passages describe violent acts, these were specific historical commands, not permanent legal obligations for believers across centuries. Judaism abandoned holy wars after the Second Temple period, and Christianity replaced vengeance with principles like “turn the other cheek”. In contrast, Islamic legal schools transformed Quranic wartime directives into lasting jurisprudence, institutionalizing rules of jihad, taxation, and the treatment of non Muslims. Context matters, but so does how the text was preserved and applied in law and empire.
Regarding apostasy, this is another stark difference. While medieval Christianity and Hinduism punished dissent, these were temporal social or institutional measures, not perpetual legal obligations derived directly from scripture. In Islam, apostasy and blasphemy were codified in all major legal schools, backed by Hadith such as “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” (Sahih al-Bukhari 3017). These rulings persisted for centuries and are still enforced in some modern states. Social ostracism in Hinduism or temporary inquisitions in Christianity cannot be equated with legal systems that mandate execution for disbelief.
The argument that ordinary Muslims shouldn’t be blamed for extremist actions overlooks the consequences of silence and systemic enforcement. When moderation fails to organize as effectively as extremism, the minority ends up representing the community in practice. Moreover, the comparison to Christianity or Judaism fails because those religions underwent major institutional reforms, abolishing executions for apostasy or blasphemy centuries ago. Islam, by contrast, still upholds legal structures influenced by these interpretations in multiple countries today.
Citing pluralistic historical episodes like Andalusia or the Ottoman millet system is selective. These were not examples of true equality; non Muslims lived as dhimmis, paid jizya, and lacked full rights. Highlighting these moments as evidence of tolerance ignores the structural hierarchy embedded in the system. Likewise, invoking mercy verses while ignoring coercive ones ignores the classical doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which prioritized militant surahs over earlier peaceful instructions.
Finally, insisting on equal scrutiny of all religions does not nullify the empirical reality: Islam uniquely codified coercive scripture into law with mechanisms that persist today. Politics and modern interpretation cannot erase centuries of practice where these texts were applied coercively. Context may explain a verse’s origin, but it does not erase its legacy. Selective quoting and romanticized readings cannot substitute for the full historical and juridical record.
That’s a really unfair generalization. Not all Muslims ignore these issues infact many openly speak out against…
Nice try, context matters, yes. But context doesnt magically erase what the text actually says, nor the ways those texts were interpreted, implemented and enforced for centuries.
You pointed to treaties and treachery as the immediate context for some verses, fair. But many of the passages cited in debates about violence are phrased in universal, prescriptive terms and were read by classical jurists and exegetes as authorising warfare, punishments, and rules of conduct beyond a single incident. Scholars such as al Tabari and Ibn Kathir (classical tafsir literature) explicitly discuss these verses as grounds for military action and legal penalties. Saying it was only about treaty breakers ignores how these verses were historically used as legal and military precedent.
Even if a verse originated in a specific 7th‑century incident, that doesn’t prevent later leaders and jurists from applying it broadly. Islamic law (fiqh) and early caliphal practice used those texts to regulate warfare, jizya (a tax on non Muslims), and treatment of dissenters, not as one off history. History shows empires invoking scriptural authority to expand and to set penalties for apostasy and treason.
Apostasy is not just an academic point, it’s a legal reality in many countries. You argue “if they repent…” and quote mercy verses, fine but in practice, numerous Muslim majority states have criminalised apostasy or run powerful blasphemy laws that punish dissent. That is a legal fact: in several countries, leaving Islam or criticising it carries severe penalties. This isn’t about cherry picking a translation, it’s about how scripture + legal tradition translates into real world restrictions on belief.
Treason verses disbelief is a distinction, but its been blurred in practice. You claim verses target treachery during war. Historically and legally, the line between “treason” and “disbelief” has often been conflated: failing to profess or abandoning Islam frequently became framed as an existential political threat, justifying the same penalties as treason. That’s why classical jurisprudence equated apostasy with a public danger, not merely a private change of conscience.
Mercy verses don’t cancel prescriptive verses. Citing 9:6 (“grant protection…”) is valid, but religions routinely contain both conciliatory and punitive passages. The presence of a merciful verse does not negate other verses that prescribe coercive or violent measures. You can’t rely on a single mercy verse to sweep away a body of texts and centuries of legal practice that say otherwise.
Whether modern Muslims reinterpret these passages more liberally or insist on historical context, that doesn’t change the fact that conservative readings exist and those readings have been used to justify violence, suppression of dissent and legal penalties for non belief. Arguing that’s not the real Islam while ignoring the long record of interpretation and law is intellectually dishonest.
Bottom line is scripture, interpretation and practice all matter. If your defence is “the verses were about war and treachery,” then fine, acknowledge that those verses were built into legal and political systems that treated dissent and non belief as punishable. If your defence is true believers would always choose mercy, then accept that this is a modern interpretive stance, not an automatic erasure of textual content or historical reality.
That’s a really unfair generalization. Not all Muslims ignore these issues infact many openly speak out against…
You say there is “no part of Islam that preaches hostility or violence”, thats simply false. Verses like Quran 9:5 (Kill the polytheists wherever you find them) and 4:89 (Fight those who do not believe in Allah…) have historically been cited to justify violence, wars and harsh punishments. These are not misinterpretations, they are explicit instructions in the scripture.
You argue that “Muslims are human and make mistakes”, sure, but when violent acts are directly supported by scripture, calling it a mistake ignores the doctrinal basis for those actions.
Regarding your point about “the power to stop extremist actions isn’t entirely in the community”, that’s a convenient excuse. While corruption and political systems differ, Islamic law and practice in many countries actively punish apostasy and dissent, showing the religion itself enforces belief, independent of political structures.
You ask how I can justify criticizing Islam for allowing people not to believe in God, that’s precisely the problem. Unlike other major religions, Islam criminalizes disbelief and apostasy in law and tradition. Freedom to disbelieve is not an abstract ideal, it is actively restricted in practice.
Finally, you claim Islam is “based on peace and patience” and that those who act violently are not true believers. But this ignores centuries of historical evidence: Islamic empires expanded through conquest, imposed taxes on non Muslims, and enforced punishments for leaving the faith. Peace may be preached as an ideal, but intolerance and violence are embedded in the texts and institutionalized in history.
So yes, you can defend Islam as a personal faith, but ignoring its doctrinal and historical record does not make it inherently peaceful. Facts speak louder than idealized claims.
That’s a really unfair generalization. Not all Muslims ignore these issues infact many openly speak out against…
Sorry to say, but not every religion has same perception as Islam, you’re simply being delusional if you think otherwise. None of the other religious scriptures promote hatred or command followers to harm non-believers. Yes, every religion has its own flaws, but none teach violence against those who follow a different faith. Moreover, no other religion restricts people from converting to another faith or even becoming atheists. In fact, some religions openly provide space for atheism and free belief. So please, don’t claim that all religions have a similar perception, no other religion preaches hostility like Islam does.
Secondly, I understand this isn’t directly about the drama or how it portrays Iblis or Satan, but my reply was specifically to your comment. Even your comment wasn’t mainly about the drama; it was about people generalizing Islam and I’m addressing that point alone. You said we shouldn’t generalize an entire community because of a few radicals, but realistically, when extremists commit violence, it inevitably leaves a lasting impression on people’s minds.
You argue that we shouldn’t hate ordinary civilians for the actions of rulers, but tell me, who allows these people to continue their actions unchecked? Who elects or supports them? The same civilians. So why can’t those who suffer because of extremists develop a generalized perception of Islam? And honestly, how many Muslims truly speak out against such extremists? Only a very few.
When the majority remains silent and lets a violent minority act in the name of their faith, that minority ends up representing the whole community, intentionally or not. So, saying “don’t generalize based on a few people’s actions” doesn’t hold much weight when the power to stop those actions lies within the same community.
That AI San dude is so hateable, he just gets on my last nerve. Kaishin deserved some better partner, who actually loves him as much he does. But this bratty dude Ai San is always in his own world and tortures Kaishin just because of his cliche childhood trauma. Even actor portraying character of AI San is so below average, low key his acting is irritating.
I honestly enjoyed the first episode of this season more than the entire first season combined. Unlike season 1, which felt childish and average to me, season 2 is already giving off a much more mature vibe. At least from Ep 1, it feels like a solid improvement but lets see if they can maintain that consistency until the end.
Edit: I also felt there was so much improvement in production work and acting.
I like the Kaishin's character but i cant stand the Ai. He is bratty for no reason and his backstory is painfully cliche, just another case of mommy-daddy issues. Honestly im tired of these recycled trauma plots about divorced parents. Its 2025, surely writers can come up with something fresher. To make it worse, the Shun’s below avg acting only drags his character down even more. On the other hand, i really liked the Masato, both his character and his performance are spot on. Epi 3 especially annoyed me when the Ai recklessly dove into the sea without even telling the Kaishin. It was peak brat behavior.
"It’s not celebrating our identities—it’s erasing them"you're spot-on with that observation! omegaverse…
Exactly! Thats what bothers me the most, it reduces gay characters to pre written roles that strip away their individuality. Instead of exploring the diverse dynamics and complexities in gay relationships, omegaverse forces them into this cookie cutter straight family model, as if thats the only valid form of love or life.
Its frustrating because it doesnt just limit storytelling, it actively pushes the idea that gay relationships are somehow incomplete unless they mimic heterosexual norms. And honestly, thats not just lazy writing, it is homophobia disguised as fantasy.
I completely agree with you on this. As a gay man, i have never been able to enjoy omegaverse for exactly the reasons you outlined. Its always felt like its trying to shove gay relationships into a heteronormative mold, with one partner essentially rewritten as weak female lead who just happens to have a male body. The whole mpreg aspect, along with heats and pheromones, strips away what makes same sex relationships unique and instead forces them into a straight dynamic.
What frustrates me the most is how it presents this as BL or gay content when, in reality, its just heterosexual romance tropes pasted onto male characters. It’s not celebrating our identities—it’s erasing them. Yes, there are effeminate gay men and masculine gay men, but we are still men, and many of us take pride in that. Making male characters biologically female for the sake of fetishizing pregnancy or replicating straight romance feels deeply insulting.
Honestly, I 100% agree with you. I’ve never liked omegaverse as a gay man, it’s always felt like an insult…
Stay With Me, The On1y One, Addicted are still better than omegaverse, and honestly speaking they all are far from being incest as none of them are blood related. Moon and Dust also had similar non blood related brothers story but it was one of worst bl i have ever watched.
Honestly, I 100% agree with you. I’ve never liked omegaverse as a gay man, it’s always felt like an insult…
If you’ve only ever read or watched gawk gawk and step bro gay stories and then claim omegaverse is better than that, what can I even say? There are thousands of better stories out there beyond gawk gawk and step bros banging each other, try reading them sometime. I personally prefer realistic gay stories set in the real world, whether it’s school romance, college romance, office romance, or mature romance. There are plenty of manhwas and mangas creating genuinely good stories like that. My point in saying that omegaverse is bad or insulting was never to compare it with gawk gawk or step bro stories. But that doesn’t change the fact that omegaverse is insulting to the gay community. To be honest, omegaverse is nothing more than fetishized gawk gawk, and without that element, it wouldn’t exist and the toxicity is just an added bonus.
insisting that fans of "revenged love" watch "a/b/o desire" is disrespectful to their preferences.…
Honestly, I 100% agree with you. I’ve never liked omegaverse as a gay man, it’s always felt like an insult to the gay community. No offense to the fans who enjoy it, but I’ve always felt it caters to the fetishes of fujoshis. The concept of males getting pregnant, and the way omegas are mostly portrayed like damsels in distress straight out of heterosexual romance stories, is what I dislike the most. Gays are men, you can’t turn them into women by representing them in such a manner. It feels very insulting. Yes, there are feminine gay men too, but at the end of the day, they are still men, and many of us take pride in our gender. That’s why I really hate the idea of BL creators making gay characters take on the role of the female lead in heterosexual style stories. For the same reason, I dislike many Thai BLs, where most stories present gay characters as if they’re weak female leads straight out of hetero romance tropes.
Wait for the wave of the attacks and ask you to drop it , this is how toxic their fans are .
First of all, how about you gain some basic sense and understand what this platform is actually meant for?? Its for discussing dramas, whether the audience likes them or not. As long as people are commenting about the drama itself without abusing anyone, its perfectly fine. This platform isnt for telling others what they should or shouldnt do. If people had even this much sense, the platform wouldnt have become so toxic.
Saying “violence is only permitted to stop aggression” ignores a critical reality: aggression was often redefined to include disbelief, criticism or leaving the faith itself. If walking away from a religion is treated as “corruption on earth,” this is not peace, it is coercion disguised as morality. Mercy verses like 9:6, which instruct protection for those seeking the message, do not cancel the prescriptive or coercive verses. Those who highlight only compassionate passages ignore how scripture shaped laws, punishments, and hierarchies over time.
Comparisons to the Bible or Vedas do not strengthen the defense. While Old Testament passages describe violent acts, these were specific historical commands, not permanent legal obligations for believers across centuries. Judaism abandoned holy wars after the Second Temple period, and Christianity replaced vengeance with principles like “turn the other cheek”. In contrast, Islamic legal schools transformed Quranic wartime directives into lasting jurisprudence, institutionalizing rules of jihad, taxation, and the treatment of non Muslims. Context matters, but so does how the text was preserved and applied in law and empire.
Regarding apostasy, this is another stark difference. While medieval Christianity and Hinduism punished dissent, these were temporal social or institutional measures, not perpetual legal obligations derived directly from scripture. In Islam, apostasy and blasphemy were codified in all major legal schools, backed by Hadith such as “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” (Sahih al-Bukhari 3017). These rulings persisted for centuries and are still enforced in some modern states. Social ostracism in Hinduism or temporary inquisitions in Christianity cannot be equated with legal systems that mandate execution for disbelief.
The argument that ordinary Muslims shouldn’t be blamed for extremist actions overlooks the consequences of silence and systemic enforcement. When moderation fails to organize as effectively as extremism, the minority ends up representing the community in practice. Moreover, the comparison to Christianity or Judaism fails because those religions underwent major institutional reforms, abolishing executions for apostasy or blasphemy centuries ago. Islam, by contrast, still upholds legal structures influenced by these interpretations in multiple countries today.
Citing pluralistic historical episodes like Andalusia or the Ottoman millet system is selective. These were not examples of true equality; non Muslims lived as dhimmis, paid jizya, and lacked full rights. Highlighting these moments as evidence of tolerance ignores the structural hierarchy embedded in the system. Likewise, invoking mercy verses while ignoring coercive ones ignores the classical doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which prioritized militant surahs over earlier peaceful instructions.
Finally, insisting on equal scrutiny of all religions does not nullify the empirical reality: Islam uniquely codified coercive scripture into law with mechanisms that persist today. Politics and modern interpretation cannot erase centuries of practice where these texts were applied coercively. Context may explain a verse’s origin, but it does not erase its legacy. Selective quoting and romanticized readings cannot substitute for the full historical and juridical record.
You pointed to treaties and treachery as the immediate context for some verses, fair. But many of the passages cited in debates about violence are phrased in universal, prescriptive terms and were read by classical jurists and exegetes as authorising warfare, punishments, and rules of conduct beyond a single incident. Scholars such as al Tabari and Ibn Kathir (classical tafsir literature) explicitly discuss these verses as grounds for military action and legal penalties. Saying it was only about treaty breakers ignores how these verses were historically used as legal and military precedent.
Even if a verse originated in a specific 7th‑century incident, that doesn’t prevent later leaders and jurists from applying it broadly. Islamic law (fiqh) and early caliphal practice used those texts to regulate warfare, jizya (a tax on non Muslims), and treatment of dissenters, not as one off history. History shows empires invoking scriptural authority to expand and to set penalties for apostasy and treason.
Apostasy is not just an academic point, it’s a legal reality in many countries. You argue “if they repent…” and quote mercy verses, fine but in practice, numerous Muslim majority states have criminalised apostasy or run powerful blasphemy laws that punish dissent. That is a legal fact: in several countries, leaving Islam or criticising it carries severe penalties. This isn’t about cherry picking a translation, it’s about how scripture + legal tradition translates into real world restrictions on belief.
Treason verses disbelief is a distinction, but its been blurred in practice. You claim verses target treachery during war. Historically and legally, the line between “treason” and “disbelief” has often been conflated: failing to profess or abandoning Islam frequently became framed as an existential political threat, justifying the same penalties as treason. That’s why classical jurisprudence equated apostasy with a public danger, not merely a private change of conscience.
Mercy verses don’t cancel prescriptive verses. Citing 9:6 (“grant protection…”) is valid, but religions routinely contain both conciliatory and punitive passages. The presence of a merciful verse does not negate other verses that prescribe coercive or violent measures. You can’t rely on a single mercy verse to sweep away a body of texts and centuries of legal practice that say otherwise.
Whether modern Muslims reinterpret these passages more liberally or insist on historical context, that doesn’t change the fact that conservative readings exist and those readings have been used to justify violence, suppression of dissent and legal penalties for non belief. Arguing that’s not the real Islam while ignoring the long record of interpretation and law is intellectually dishonest.
Bottom line is scripture, interpretation and practice all matter. If your defence is “the verses were about war and treachery,” then fine, acknowledge that those verses were built into legal and political systems that treated dissent and non belief as punishable. If your defence is true believers would always choose mercy, then accept that this is a modern interpretive stance, not an automatic erasure of textual content or historical reality.
You argue that “Muslims are human and make mistakes”, sure, but when violent acts are directly supported by scripture, calling it a mistake ignores the doctrinal basis for those actions.
Regarding your point about “the power to stop extremist actions isn’t entirely in the community”, that’s a convenient excuse. While corruption and political systems differ, Islamic law and practice in many countries actively punish apostasy and dissent, showing the religion itself enforces belief, independent of political structures.
You ask how I can justify criticizing Islam for allowing people not to believe in God, that’s precisely the problem. Unlike other major religions, Islam criminalizes disbelief and apostasy in law and tradition. Freedom to disbelieve is not an abstract ideal, it is actively restricted in practice.
Finally, you claim Islam is “based on peace and patience” and that those who act violently are not true believers. But this ignores centuries of historical evidence: Islamic empires expanded through conquest, imposed taxes on non Muslims, and enforced punishments for leaving the faith. Peace may be preached as an ideal, but intolerance and violence are embedded in the texts and institutionalized in history.
So yes, you can defend Islam as a personal faith, but ignoring its doctrinal and historical record does not make it inherently peaceful. Facts speak louder than idealized claims.
Secondly, I understand this isn’t directly about the drama or how it portrays Iblis or Satan, but my reply was specifically to your comment. Even your comment wasn’t mainly about the drama; it was about people generalizing Islam and I’m addressing that point alone. You said we shouldn’t generalize an entire community because of a few radicals, but realistically, when extremists commit violence, it inevitably leaves a lasting impression on people’s minds.
You argue that we shouldn’t hate ordinary civilians for the actions of rulers, but tell me, who allows these people to continue their actions unchecked? Who elects or supports them? The same civilians. So why can’t those who suffer because of extremists develop a generalized perception of Islam? And honestly, how many Muslims truly speak out against such extremists? Only a very few.
When the majority remains silent and lets a violent minority act in the name of their faith, that minority ends up representing the whole community, intentionally or not. So, saying “don’t generalize based on a few people’s actions” doesn’t hold much weight when the power to stop those actions lies within the same community.
https://youtu.be/Ry3NzkAOo3s?si=ZFzZU0d_9xsUwy2x
Edit: I also felt there was so much improvement in production work and acting.
Epi 3 especially annoyed me when the Ai recklessly dove into the sea without even telling the Kaishin. It was peak brat behavior.
Its frustrating because it doesnt just limit storytelling, it actively pushes the idea that gay relationships are somehow incomplete unless they mimic heterosexual norms. And honestly, thats not just lazy writing, it is homophobia disguised as fantasy.
What frustrates me the most is how it presents this as BL or gay content when, in reality, its just heterosexual romance tropes pasted onto male characters. It’s not celebrating our identities—it’s erasing them. Yes, there are effeminate gay men and masculine gay men, but we are still men, and many of us take pride in that. Making male characters biologically female for the sake of fetishizing pregnancy or replicating straight romance feels deeply insulting.
Moon and Dust also had similar non blood related brothers story but it was one of worst bl i have ever watched.
I personally prefer realistic gay stories set in the real world, whether it’s school romance, college romance, office romance, or mature romance. There are plenty of manhwas and mangas creating genuinely good stories like that.
My point in saying that omegaverse is bad or insulting was never to compare it with gawk gawk or step bro stories. But that doesn’t change the fact that omegaverse is insulting to the gay community. To be honest, omegaverse is nothing more than fetishized gawk gawk, and without that element, it wouldn’t exist and the toxicity is just an added bonus.
Gays are men, you can’t turn them into women by representing them in such a manner. It feels very insulting. Yes, there are feminine gay men too, but at the end of the day, they are still men, and many of us take pride in our gender. That’s why I really hate the idea of BL creators making gay characters take on the role of the female lead in heterosexual style stories. For the same reason, I dislike many Thai BLs, where most stories present gay characters as if they’re weak female leads straight out of hetero romance tropes.