u/Wholesome_and_based

I believe AoT severely lacked in the world building department, especially considering there was a world war going on. There should have been various nations which are neutral, and even pro-Paradis so that it actually feels like a world war and not some local conflict. Here are my suggestions for it:

• In the 4 years time skip, Zeke helps Paradis connect with various world leaders, and not just Hizuru for the iceburst stone. Vast majority of countries say no but some promise to be neutral in the war, with Hizuru and a couple others supporting Paradis. We should see more of Historia who will negotiate various treaties for trade with the allies.
• We should see rebel factions in countries which are against Paradis, whom Paradis will support, and this will as do the necessary world building for the show. Marley colonized various nations, and thus it only makes sense if the rebels support Paradis or stay neutral in this war.
• We should have an entire arc of Hizuru, with Mikasa's connection with the Hizuru royal family being emphasized. Hizuru offers Mikasa a safe haven for Eren and herself in case things go haywire in Paradis. In return, Mikasa offers to convinve Historia and others for supporting Paradis in the war.

Given IK's fundamentalist tendencies and support for Taliban, as well as his his single curriculum policy mandating Islamic subjects on non-Muslim students, do you think the current regime is better for the safety of minorities?

Sharia law creates a two-tier legal system that disadvantages non-Muslims. Examples include:

1. Religious freedom is restricted: Non-Muslims often cannot build places of worship freely, nor can they preach their faith to Muslims, while conversion to Islam is allowed and even encouraged.
2. Marriage inequality: Muslim women are generally not allowed to marry outside their faith unless the partner converts, whereas Muslim men can marry Christian or Jewish women. This creates population growth advantages and imbalances in interfaith relationships.
3. Polygamy is legal for Muslim men, which further amplifies demographic shifts and is unavailable to others. Men from other religion will only be allowed to practice it if the state recognizes their religions.
4. Jizya tax on non-Muslims: In some implementations, non-Muslims pay a special tax (jizya), which some justify as "protection money" and others interpret as institutional humiliation. Jizya was historically much higher than the Zakat paid by Muslims.
5. Apostasy laws: Leaving Islam is criminalized or socially persecuted in many jurisdictions, and promoting atheism or other belief systems is often illegal.
6. Unequal justice: Some legal schools (like Hanbali) allow reduced punishment if a Muslim harms a non-Muslim. For example, prison or death penalty may not apply, and only a monetary compensation might be imposed—even for serious harm. If the opposite happens, the non-Muslim is guaranteed to face prison or death penalty
7. Political and military exclusion: Non-Muslims are often barred from having any authority in the state, especially in justice systems based on Sharia, and may be restricted from commanding roles in the military.

If you support all this, will you support countries like India, US, UK, Sweden implementing similar systems with non-Muslims having authority.

I believe males in the current world have significantly more difficult lives, especially in the west, and thus you should be helping your sons way more than your daughters

The very term Islamophobia is itself misleading. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. In the case of Islam, however, it often makes practical sense to be afraid. But guess what, ex-Muslims worldwide have genuine fears about a religion that advocates the murder of its apostates and victimizes its own members, especially innocent women and children.

Moreover, many people who have been labeled as "Islamophobes" do not exhibit signs of a phobia. Many are individuals who bring up relevant critiques against the institution of Islam. Having a well-reasoned and valid complaint is not the same as bigotry or fear, and labeling it as such is dismissive towards the greater discussion. By labeling its detractors as bigots and racists, Islam and its apologists are suggesting that Islam cannot stand up to scrutiny on its own.

At its core, Islam has Several Basic Tenets that are Reprehensible.

• Women's inequality. The Quran teaches that men are the "maintainers" of women and that women should be obedient to men. Women are seen as objects or property that can be used by men. Islam also teaches that men may beat their wives in certain situations. And lets not forget that fact that a woman's testimony is half as worth as that of a man.
• Criminalization of homosexuality. Under the teachings of Islam, homosexuality is not only a sin, but a crime. As a crime against God, it is permissible, according to many Muslim scholars, to punish the offender with death.
• Murder of apostates. Leaving the Muslim faith is a frightening proposition, as it can be punished by death. Apostates, or people who choose to reject the faith, are given a short time with which to revert; afterward, they can be condemned by Sharia law.
• And lets not forget the fact that Islam encourages people to treat non-Muslims as 2nd class citizens if ruled by Sharia law. This is evident in countries like Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Malaysia etc

It's worthwhile to note that Islam is not the only religion whose holy book advocates social practices that are seen as monstrous today. However, the laws written in the Quran are considered to be the exact words of Allah, placing them beyond all criticism. These laws are considered to be as timeless and valid today as they were when the words were first put to paper. There is a reason why we have New Testament in Christianity but nothing similar in Islam.

Many atheists criticize Islam, not because they are racist, but because they have issues with the religion itself. That does not mean that there are no racist atheists, but the term Islamophobia suggests that the ideology should be immune from criticism. It also promotes the narrative that all criticism of Islam is an act of bigotry, which is not true. My criticism and concern is not a phobia; it is based on observing the results of the undeniably violent teachings of Islam. Many ex-Muslims living in the west who have chosen to publicly voice their opinions about Islam would be executed by governments in their home countries.

The notion of free speech is an inherently secular concept. The idea that a person's religion should be separated from politics or education is not something that exists in Islamic societies. Not only must the word of Allah be taken literally, but the laws of Islam also supersede the laws of men. In some cases, criticism of Islam is met with violence; Islamic law even dictates that blasphemy can be punished with death. While the concept of Islamophobia seems socially responsible, it is, in fact, just a way to further silence people who seek to make valid points against an inherently troubling religion. Accusing those critics of bigotry and racism is only a way to derail the more important conversation about the real, observable flaws in Islam as an institution.

Can mods delete content just because they feel like, or there is a protocol? If yes, then what is the use of the rules? Wouldn't it be better if the mods stated the kind of opinions which are acceptable in the rules list, so that people with differing opinions can avoid such subreddits?

People often conflate criticism of Islam with racism, but that's a false equivalence. Islam is a religion, not a race. Muslims come from various races, like white, black, brown etc. Disagreeing with an ideology like Islam doesn't mean you hate people of a certain race.

I believe Islam, especially in its more orthodox or political forms, is one of the most barbaric cults responsible for various genocides and ethnic cleansing. From the genocide of Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Nigerian Christians, to the ethnic cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus, Kashmiri Pandits, Yemeni Jews, this cult has shown fanatical intolerance to people from other religions.

Most Muslim majority countries have Islam as state religion, and an apartheid legal system based on Sharia. This results in non-Muslims living as second class citizens and their eventual ethnic cleansing. There is nothing racist in hating this cult which has lead to oppression of millions of innocent non-Muslims.

Criticism of these elements should be allowed without automatically being labeled "racist" or "Islamophobic." Just like people can criticize Christianity or Communism without hating Christians or Chinese people, we should be able to discuss Islam honestly.

It is no secret that Reiner and Jean are favourite characters of Hajime Isayama. The entire final season is evidence of this, with Hajime bending every possible logic to show Reiner in a positive light despite doing zero acts of redemption, and literally retconning both Jean and Mikasa to end up together.

Just a day before the Trost attack, Reiner acknowledges the entire 104th cadets to be island demons and not his friends. Reiner also forces the "revenge for Liberio" to be preponed. He made absolutely no counter arguments whatsoever, when Magath talked of eradicating Paradis. He then had the audacity to tell Eren to sleep and give up, so that he could "​end" the conflict. But guess what, we all are supposed to ignore all this and root for Reiner for the as a felt bad and cried. If Ad0lf H cried in from Hajime, he'd probably forgive him. This leads me to believe Hajime sees a bit of Reiner in himself, a depressed creep with severe victim complex. He probably blamed the entire world for his failures in school.

Jean was literally retconned. He was the only one who acknowledged that the rumbling was good for Paradis, yet he decided to go ahead with that garbage brain Hange.

And lets not forget Hajime Isayama deliberately jeopardized Erens and Mikasa relationship so that he can give more screentime to mediocre characters like Reiner and co. If their relationship was so vital to the ending, why not spend time on that instead of his half hearted attempt to redeem Reiner.

My personal theory is that Hajime sees himself in both Reiner(a creep with severe victim complex) and Jean(a loser who is obsessed with a girl who ignored him for 10 years, hoping to get her some day). Some girl probably rejected him in his youth because of his "good looks", and he wanted his favorite character to get that girl in this story. This is the reason is why Hajime stopped developing Mikasa's character after season 1. She was the most popular at the time which made Hajime resent her, taking his real life frustrations on her. And this is another reason why he did not develop Eremika in the final season.

I am glad AoT never became the number selling manga in any year. Demons Slayer sold more copies with less chapters. JJK sold significantly more copies even before its anime aired compared to AoT.