Unfortunately, it is not enough to say that Islam allows the rape of prisoner/slave-women. Islam apologists run away by making excuse that Islam is not alone, but whole world allowed the rape of slave-women.

Yes, perhaps the whole world allowed the rape of the slave-women, but the worst type of barbarianism and extreme oppression, that has been shown by Islam, it is where Islam apologists have no chance to defend Islam.

Promise, Islam apologists will not be able to run away, while the devil lies in the Details.

Please take full time, but must read till the end. It is one of the most important Article, where "Humanity" will ultimately DESTROY the whole building of Islam.

1st Problem: Allah (i.e. Muhammad) not only allowed the Muslim owner to rape the slave-girl, but also to hand her over to other people to rape her after having Shia Mut'a type "Temporary Sexual Relationship".

Allowing a Muslim owner to rape a prisoner/slave-women was itself a great crime of Allah (i.e. Muhammad) against the humanity.

But Allah went even further in cruelty against the prisoner/slave-girl, and Allah dishonoured the poor slave-girl in one of the worst possible way by letting her to be raped by multiple Muslim men one by one.

Allah made it Halal for the Muslim owner that after fulfilling his Lust in Shia Mut'a type "Temporary Sexual Relationship), if he got bored, then he could hand her over to one of his brother (or even to his slave). And after all of his brothers (/or slaves) have raped her one by one and fulfilled their lust and get bored, then she could be sold to the 2nd master, who is again going to rape her, and then sell her to the 3rd master .... and thus this cycle of rape continues for the poor slave-girl.

Here is the proof of raping the slave women in this Mut'a type temporary sexual relationship.

Sahih Muslim, Kitab-ul-Nikah (link), Sahih Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Qadr (link), Sahih Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Tauheed (link):

Abu Sa'id al-Khadri said:
We went out with Allah's Messenger on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired (to have sex with) them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired good ransom money for them by selling them). So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (i.e. withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception so that they don’t become pregnant). But then we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger, and he said: (Yes, it is allowed, but) it does not matter if you do it or not, while if any soul has to be born up to the Day of Resurrection, then it will be born.

This tradition has been narrated multiple times in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and all other Hadith books, through multiple chains of narration.

Even Judaism/Christianity dealt with slave women much better than Islam

Judaism and Christianity didn't allow the owners to rape the captive/slave-women like Islam, but they stipulated that:

• An owner is allowed only to "marry" the captive/slave-woman.
• After marriage, the status of captive/slave-woman became like a permanent wife.
• And such slave-woman could not be handed over to the brother or slave as a sex object, and could not be sold to another owner after Shia Mut'a type temporary sexual relationship.

Bible, Deuteronomy, Chap 21 (link):

Marrying a Captive Woman:
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

The “Inverse Journey” of “Religious Morality” (from bad to worse)

“Religious Morality” of Judaism/Christianity was bad too, while they allowed to take the captive women as slaves. But this “religious morality” became worse after the arrival of Muhammad.

​

​

Why Muhammad left the laws of Moses, and followed the laws of ignorant polytheist Arab society?

Jews were themselves present in al-Madina and Muhammad knew very well about ruling regarding captive women in Judaism. Still Muhammad neglected the Sharia (i.e. law) of Moses, and included the laws of the ignorant polytheist Arab society of his time into the Islamic Sharia.

Why?

Answer is simple. 

The laws of ignorant Arab culture brought more "Financial Benefits" to Muhammad, where he and his army not only got sexual pleasures by raping the captive/slave-women, but also made much more money by selling them. Yes, these extras sexual pleasures and extra money came at the cost of worst type of cruelty upon the captive/slave-women, but Muhammad didn't care for the humanity, as he was not the true prophet. 

Just remember that those poor captive/slave-women were totally innocent, and they had no role in the wars, but still Muhammd didn't spare them, and misused them for his own benefits. 

2nd Problem: Allah(/Muhammad) allowed Muslims to rape the captive women the first night, although they had killed their fathers/brothers/husbands and sons on the same day

This is the 1400 years history of Islam, where they killed the men in the day, then took all their women and small girls as captives. They didn’t even allow them to weep upon the killing of their relatives, and Islamic Jihadis (warriors) started raping the small girls and the young virgin girls, the same night (included penetration into their vaginas).

As far as those captive women were concerned, who previously had the husbands, then Allah(/Muhammad) allowed to undress them, and kiss their naked bodies, and force them to masturbate them and to provide all type of sex services. They were allowed to drive all kinds of sexual pleasures from them, except for penetration in the vagina. They were allowed to penetrate in their vagina after they became free from their first menses blood.

Abdullah, the son of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, writes in his book “Masail al-Imam Ahmed” (link):

حدثنا علي بن عثمان قال حدثنا حماد عن علي بن زيد عن أيوب بن عبدالله اللخمي أن ابن عمر قال وقع في سهمي يوم جلولا جارية كأن عنقها إبريق فضة ، فقال ابن عمر : فما ملكت نفسي حتى وثبت إليها فجعلت أقبلها والناس ينظرون

Translation:
“Narrated Ayoub bin Abdullah al-Lukhmi that ibn Umar said: ‘On the day of the Jalola battle I won a slave-girl, her neck was like a silver ewe.’ Then ibn Umar added: ‘I couldn’t control myself, I immediately jumped on her and began kissing her, while the people were looking at me”

Muhammad bin Ismail al-Kahlani (d. 1182 H) comments on this tradition in ‘Subul al-Salam’ Volume 3 page 210 (link):

أعلم أن الحديث دل بمفهومه على جواز الاستمتاع قبل الاستبراء

Translation:
“You must know that the hadith is significant in relation to the permissibility of enjoying (the slave girl) before she performs ablution (Arabic: Istibra … i.e. becoming free from the first menses blood)”

Imam Abu Hanifa said regarding the ablution (iddah/istibra) of a slave-girl (Al-Mabsoot by Serkhasi, Volume 13 page 148. Link):

وذكر أبويوسف في الأمالي أن أباحنيفة كان يقول بالقياس ثم رجع إلى الاستحسان فقال ليس عليه أن يستبرئها وهو قول أبي يوسف ومحمد رحمهما الله

Abu Yusuf stated in al-Amali that Abu Hanfia was reporting about conjecture (qiyas) but then he switched to ‘estihsan’ and said: ‘It is not required for him to let her (the slave-girl) perform ablution’ and same is the statement of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad may Allah’s mercy be upon them’

The Jihadis (Islamic Warriors) didn’t even leave the pregnant women alone, but they were also raped the same night (except for penetration in their vagina).

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani writes in his book “Fath-ul-Bari (link):

وقال عطاء لا بأس أن يصيب من جاريته الحامل ما دون الفرج

Translation:
Atta said: ‘There is no harm to drive sexual pleasure from the body of the pregnant slave-girl except of vagina’

According to Islamic Scholars, the Fiqh (Jurisprudence) of Imam Bukhari lies in the “Headings of Chapters” of his Book.

Imam Bukhari gives this heading in his book Sahih Bukhari (link):

Chapter: If one buys a slave woman, can then he take her along with him in a journey without her completing her waiting period?

Under this heading, Imam Bukhari writes:

ولم ير الحسن بأسا أن يقبلها أو يباشرها. وقال ابن عمر ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ إذا وهبت الوليدة التي توطأ أو بيعت أو عتقت فليستبرأ رحمها بحيضة، ولا تستبرأ العذراء. وقال عطاء لا بأس أن يصيب من جاريته الحامل ما دون الفرج.

Translation:
Hasan Basri finds nothing objectionable in kissing a woman or to having sex with her. And Ibn Umar said that such a slave woman who is given as a present, or who is sold, or who is made free, but sex had been done with her before that, then she had to undergo a waiting period. And Atta said if a slave woman had become pregnant (from the earlier owner/husband), then still pleasure could be derived from whole of her body, except for her vagina.

What was the state of mind of the poor captive women, when they were raped by Muslim Jihadists on the first night?

In order to understand the state of mind of those captive women due to the killing of their relatives, could be seen in this tradition.

History of Tabari, Volume 8, Page 112:

Ibn Ishaq said: After the Messenger of God conquered al-Qamus, Safiyyah bint Huyayy was brought to him, and another woman with her. Bilal (a companion), who was teh one who brought them, led them past some of the slain Jews. When the woman who was with Safiyyah saw them, she cried out, struck her face, and poured dust on her head. When Messenger of God saw her, he said, "Take this she-devil away from me!" ... The Messenger of God said to Bilal, when he saw the Jewsih woman doing what he saw her do, "Are you dvoid of mercy, Bilal, that you take two women past their slain men?"

Now imagine, what Shock it would have been for these poor women and girls, when Muslim Jihadists had also started raping them and forcing them to provide the sex-services, while they were in that state of mind, where they were crying and mourning the killings of their fathers, hubands and sons. 

Which crime could be greater against humanity than crime of Allah(/Muhammad)?

 Islam apologists come up with this excuse that perhaps this tradition of History of Tabari is weak. But they should realise that this excuse is not going to work, while it is a "Universal Truth" that after killing of relatives in the war, all women are automatically in this state of crying and mourning. While the 2nd "Universal Truth" is this that Muslims indeed raped them and forced them to provide the sex-services the very first night.

Please again remember that Bible (Jews and Christians) didn't allow this cruelity against the prisoner women, but they were human enough to provide the captive women a period of whole one month to mourn their relatives, and only after that they married them. It does not make their act of making captives into slaves, but at least they were much better and humane than Allah(/Muhammad).

Waiting period for the captive/slave-women (who already had husbands) was only to become free of the first menses blood

The “waiting period” for captive/slave woman (who previously had husbands) is over after one menses. Therefore, if she becomes free of blood in 3 days, then the new owner, or his brother or slave could start having sex with her with penetration after 3 days.

Saffiyyah became free of her blood the next night after her father, brother and husband were killed in the war. Thus Muhammad had sex with her the next night.

Sahih Bukhari, Book of Military Expeditions (link):

We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet selected her for himself, and set out with her, and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba,' Safiya became clean from her menses then Allah's Messenger slept with her.

Imam Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd (who is also knows as younger Imam Malik), writes in his Fiqh book (link):

واستبراء الامة في انتقال الملك حيضة انتقل الملك ببيع أو هبة أو سبي أو غير ذلك. ومن هي في حيازته قدحاضت عنده ثم إنه اشتراها فلا استبراء عليها إن لم تكن تخرج.

Translation:
The istibrā' (waiting) period for a slave concubine who changes ownership is one menstruation. Ownership may change by selling, giving away, capture, or any other way. If the woman menstruates after being taken possession of in advance by her new owner, and then he buys her, she does not have to go through a period of istibrā' (i.e. waiting period).

Thus, the waiting period for a slave woman was only one mentruation i.e. if she became free of menses blood in 3 days, then next owner could start raping her after that.

Sunnan Abu Dawud, Book of Marriage (link):

Abu Saeed al-Khudri said about the captive women of Autaas: … don’t do intercourse with them till the time they become free of their first menstruation blood.

1st Problem due to "Temporary Sexual Relationship" with slave-women: 2 or more Official Fathers of child

If there were two or more joint-owners of the slave-women, then Islam allowed those joint-owners to rape her one by one. They only had to wait for 3 (to 7) days, so that the slave-woman became free of her monthly blood, and after that next owner was allowed to start raping her.

But this caused doubts in many cases that who was the real father if the child was born.

Thus Muhammad adopted this solution where both those 2 (or more) joint-owners became the Combined Official Fathers of the child.

Imam Ibn Qadamah wrote in his book Al-Mughani (link):

وإذا كانت الأمة بين شريكين فوطئاها لزمها استبراءان

If a slave-woman is in joint ownership of 2 men, then they both could have sex with her by performing double "Istabra" (i.e. becoming free of monthly blood twice)

And it is written in Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, vol. 6, page 162, Urdu edition (link):

If two men have joint ownership of a slave-woman, and a child is born, and both claimed the parentage of the child, then both will be the (official) father of that child.

In this same Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, vol. 6, page 173, Urdu edition (link), it has been written:

Imam Abu Hanifa said: If a slave-woman is in joint ownership of 3 or 4 or 5 men, and all of them claimed the parentage of the child, then all of them will be his (official) fathers.

Fatawa-e-Alamgiri is an authentic Fiqh book of Hanafi jurisprudence and has been taught in all the Madaris (religious schools) of Indian Sub-Continent (i.e. Pakistan/India/Bangladesh)

2nd Problem caused by Temporary Sexual Relationship with slave women: Owner was allowed to deny the parentage of his own child and declare him a Bastard

But temporary sexual relationship with slave women was not limited only to the joint-owners, and the owner often sold the slave woman to another master, or gave her to his brother or to his slave too, and they raped her after she became free of monthly blood in 3 (to 7) days.

So, problems raised what to do if doubts occured in such cases?

Mohammad came up with this solution, that the owner was allowed to deny the parentage of his own child from slave-woman, and thus declare his own child to be a BASTARD (Arabic: Walad-ul-Haram).

Even if the 2 joint-owners didn't want the parentage of the child from their common slave-women, they were also allowed to deny the parentage and declared the child a Bastard.

Sunnan Ibn Majah (link):

وَلَا يَلْحَقُ إِذَا کَانَ أَبُوهُ الَّذِي يُدْعَی لَهُ أَنْکَرَهُ

… a child from a slave woman cannot be named after his father if the man whom he claimed as his father did not acknowledge him.
Imam Albani declared this Hadith as Fair (Hasan). Link.
This same tradition has also been narrated by Amr bin Shoaib in Sunnan Abdu Dawud, and has again been graded as Hasan (link).

Imam Muhammad bin Ahmad Sarkhasi (d. 483 H) writes in his book Al-Mabsut, Volume 2 page 152 (link):

وولد أم الولد ثابت من المولى ما لم ينفه لأنها فراش له وقال عليه الصلاة والسلام الولد للفراش ولكن ينتفي عنه بمجرد النفي عندنا

“The son of a slave woman is attributed to the owner as long as he didn’t deny it, because she had been on a bed with him, He (i.e. prophet Muhammad) said that the son belongs to the bed, but he (the child) will be not be attributed to him if he just denied him according to us.”

And Imam Ibn Hamam writes in his book Fath al-Qadir (link):

أم الولد بسبب أن ولدها ، وإن ثبت نسبه بلا دعوة ينتفي نسبه بمجرد نفيه ، بخلاف المنكوحة لا ينتفي نسب ولدها إلا باللعان

“The slave woman’s son, even if his paternity is proven without a claim (from the father), has his parentage disassociated just by denial, unlike the wife in a Nikah whose son’s parentage cannot be dissociated except through “le’an.”

Imam Showkani records in Nail al-Awtar, Volume 7 page 77 (link):

وروي عن أبي حنيفة والثوري وهو مذهب الهادوية أن الأمة لا يثبت فراشها إلا بدعوة الولد ولا يكفي الإقرار بالوطئ ، فإن لم يدعه كان ملكا له

“It is narrated from Abi Hanifa, al-Thawri and it is the Hadwiyah madhab that the paternity of a slave woman’s (son) cannot be proved without the claim (from the father), the admission of performing sexual intercourse shall not suffice, if he didn’t claim paternity, he (the son) will become a slave for him. “

Next crime against the humantiy by Allah(/Muhammad) was this that they made that innocent child to suffer in the Islamic society in name of being a Bastard. 

• Allah(/Muhammad) put a ban that those innocent children could not get the name of their fathers, but the should be called by the names of their mothers only, so that they could be recognised easily as Bastards in the society and could be humiliated.
• Allah(/Muhammad) banned that those innocent children get any share in inheritance of their fathers.
• If child is a girl, then she is a Non-Mehram for her father and step brothers and therefore could never get the fatherly love, nor and brotherly love from her step brothers. 
• All the 4 Fiqh Imams (i.e. Malik, Abu Hanifa, Shafi'i and Ahmed bin Hanbal) say that it is not allowed for a bastard child to lead a congregational prayer (Reference: Biggest English Fatwa Website Islamweb.org. Link).
• Allah claims that a bastard daughter/son is bigger evil and sinner than his/her parents.

Sunnan Abu Dawud (link):

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏قَالَ:‏‏‏‏ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:‏‏‏‏ "وَلَدُ الزِّنَا شَرُّ الثَّلَاثَةِ"، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وقَالَ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ:‏‏‏‏ لَأَنْ أُمَتِّعَ بِسَوْطٍ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ أَحَبُّ إِلَيَّ مِنْ أَنْ أَعْتِقَ وَلَدَ زِنْيَةٍ.

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The child of fornication is worst of the three (among father, mother & child). Abu Hurayrah said that he prefers to give dirt as alms in path of Allah then freeing such illegitimate slave (due to his/her being even bigger evil and sinner than his/her fornicating parents).
Imam Albani graded this Hadith as "Sahih" (link).
Imam Wadai declared this Hadith as "Sahih" according to the standards of Imam Muslim (link).

Owner can destroy the family of his slave at any time and take his wife for himself to have sex with her

Slaves were not allowed to marry at their own, but they were completely at the mercy of their owners.

Owners could give away one of his slave woman to any of his slave men as wife. But if the owner wished, then at any time he could take away his wife from him, and start doing sex with her himself.

Sahih Bukhari, Book of Marriage (link):

وَقَالَ أَنَسٌ: {وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ} ذَوَاتُ الأَزْوَاجِ الْحَرَائِرُ حَرَامٌ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ لاَ يَرَى بَأْسًا أَنْ يَنْزِعَ الرَّجُلُ جَارِيَتَهُ مِنْ عَبْدِهِ.

Companion Anas Ibn Malik said: The meaning of the verse (وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ Surah Nisa) is this that if a slave girl of any person is in the marriage of his slave man, then owner could take that woman for himself from his slave man.

Again Muhammad left the Moses law here, and followed the laws of uncivilised Arab society.

And slaves were not allowed to marry at their own.

Sunnan Abud Dawud, Book of Marriage (link):

حَدَّثَنَا عُقْبَةُ بْنُ مُكْرَمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو قُتَيْبَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ إِذَا نَكَحَ الْعَبْدُ بِغَيْرِ إِذْنِ مَوْلاَهُ فَنِكَاحُهُ بَاطِلٌ ‏"‏

Ibn ‘Umar reported the Prophet as saying “If a slave marries without the permission of his owner, his marriage is null and void.

Sunnan al-Tirmiddhi (link):

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أيما عبد تزوج بغير إذن مواليه فهو عاهر

Prohet said: When a slave marries without the permission of the owner, then that slave is a fornicator.

Can one still believe in this Muslim claim that Islam gave all the “Basic Human Rights” to the slaves?

Owner can separate the 6 months old baby from slave-mother and sell in the slave market

Imam Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd (also known as younger Imam Malik) wrote in his Maliki Fiqh Book (link):

ولا يفرق بين الام وولدها في البيع حتى يثغر

Translation:
The owner of a slave woman cannot separate the baby from her mother and sell him till the time baby grows it’s second teeth (i.e. about 6 months)

A mother could only weep the tears of blood, if her 8 months old baby is separated from her and sold in the slave market.

​

Allah (i.e. Muhammad) allowed to separate the child from his slave-mother after the child has two teeth, and to sell in the slave market.

This same separation of slave mother from their children is also present in this Hadith:

Sunnan Ibn Majah (link):
جَابِرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، يَقُولُ كُنَّا نَبِيعُ سَرَارِينَا وَأُمَّهَاتِ أَوْلاَدِنَا وَالنَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِينَا حَىٌّ لاَ نَرَى بِذَلِكَ بَأْسًا ‏
Translation:
Companion Jabir bin `Abdullah said: “We used to sell our slave women and the slave-mothers of our children (Umahat Awaldina) when the Prophet was still living among us, and we did not see anything wrong with that.”
ٰImam Albani declared this Hadith to be authentic (Sahih). Link.

This is the 1400 years of history of Islam. That history, in which hundreds and thousands of babies were separated from their slave-mothers, and sold in the slave markets.

One of the earliest surviving Christian texts from the Islamic period in Syria, dated around 640 CE, describes the rise of Islam in this way (link):

They take the wife away from her husband and slay him like a sheep. They throw the babe from her mother and drive her into slavery; the child calls out from the ground and the mother hears, yet what is she to do?...They separate the children from the mother like the soul from within the body, and she watches as they divide her loved ones from off her lap, two of them go to two owners, herself to another[...] Her children cry out in lament, their eyes hot with tears. She turns to her loved ones, milk pouring forth from her breast: "Go in peace, my darlings, and may God accompany you."
— Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, Robert G. Hoyland[51]

If you don’t weep after reading it, then you have no mercy and no humanity left in you.

Whole family of slave was at the mercy of owner:

In Islam:

• Slaves were not allowed to marry at their own in order to form a family. They were totally dependant upon the mercy of the owner.
• If any slave man and woman married without the consent of owner, then it was considered a fornication, for which both of them had to be punished with lashes.
• Even if an owner showed mercy and married one of his slave woman to his slave man, still owner got the full right to break the family of his slave at any time, and to take his wife back for himself to have sex with her.
• Even if a slave mother got a baby, still owner could destroy this family too, and separate the baby and sell him/her in the slave market at the age of 6 months.
• And owner was allowed to sell the slave-father even before the birth of the baby. Poor slave-father didn’t even have the right to stay for one day with his baby.
• Normally owners used to marry their slave women only to a healthy and young slave man, so that a healthy baby was born, and they could sell the baby at good price in the slave market.
  Have you seen this practice in the cattle farm, when one healthy Bull is given the chance to mate with all the cows, so that healthy baby calf could be born?
  Islam used exactly the same concept, where slave women were mated only with a healthy slave man, so that healthy babies were born, who could be later sold for good price.
  In this set up, normally old owners handed over their slave girls to a healthy slave man, so that he could rape those slave girls. After the birth of the healthy babies, those old owners again took the slave women back to them and start fulfilling their sexual lusts by raping them.

These were the benefits, due to which Muhammad neglected the Moses law, and followed the laws of uncivilized Arab society, and made them the part of Islamic Sharia.

No “Witness” was needed for having sex with the slave-girl (even if one is doing sex with the slave-girl of another person)

Owner didn’t need to have any “witness” for having sex with his slave-girl. He could purchase her, and then start raping her.

Unfortunately, this evil didn’t stop there, but it went further, as Islam also allowed the owner to present her as a “gift” to any of his brother or friend or any other person, who was again allowed to rape her against her consent and without any “witness”.

Fatawa Alamgiri, vol 3, page 268, Urdu edition (link):

Singular Report is enough in the religious issues. Therefore, if a slave woman comes to any person and tell him that her master has gifted me to you, then that person could trust that slave-girl and have sex with her.

This ruling of Islam was then “misused” by the owners, and they compelled their slave-women for fornication. We will read in details about it later in this article.

Slaves are not human enough to “testify” in the court according to Allah(/Muhammad)

Islamic Sharia didn’t even consider slaves as human enough to give their testimony in the court.

Ibn Taymiyyah wrote in his Fatawa, vol. 35, page 409:

Imam Shafii, Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa say that testimony of a slave is not accepted.

Imam Shafii wrote in his book “Ahkam-ul-Quran, vol 2, page 142):

And the testimony should be from the free men, and not from the slaves. Similarly, these free men should be the follower of our religion (i.e. they should be Muslims), while the testimony of non-Muslims free men is not accepted

Imam Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd writes in his Fiqh Book (link):

ولا تجوز شهادة المحدود ولا شهادة عبد ولا صبي ولا كافر

The testimony of someone who has been given a fixed punishment, or of a slave, a minor or an unbeliever is inadmissible.

Please remember that in Islam:

1. Testimony of free Muslim woman’s testimony is considered “half testimony” as compared to free Muslim male. And that testimony was also limited only to the “financial” cases. Free Muslim women were not allowed to give testimony in the cases of “Hudud” cases (like Rape of woman, killing, stealing, robbery)
2. But the testimony of Slaves were absolutely not accepted in any case. For example, if a free man beats the slave man, then the testimony of that slave man (or other slaves who witnessed that crime) was not acceptable.
3. Similarly, if a free Muslim man rapped a slave woman, then neither her testimony was accepted, nor of other slave women who witnessed that crime, nor even of free Muslim woman while rape came under “Hudud” cases.
4. Same is the case with the non-Muslim men and women. Their testimonies were also not accepted against any free Muslim man.

Note:

There is one incident where Prophet Muhammad accepted the testimony of a slave woman, who testified in case of breast milk feeding to a baby. But according to Salaf Islamic Fiqh Imams, these were minor “exceptions”, where testimonies of one woman, or slave women could be accepted in minor cases like those cases which involve the private body of the woman. For example, if a slave woman testify that she has become free of her menses blood, then her testimony could be accepted in this case, and her new owner can start intercourse with her.

Therefore, except for this one exceptional case, there are one million other Ahadith and Quranic verses, but none of them tell any incident where slaves were allowed to testify. This is in itself a proof enough that Islam does not accept the testimony of the slaves.

Using rape of slave women as mean of source of Income by the owners

In Indian Sub-Continent, slave girls were sold in the Diamond Markets. They were trained in dancing and singing. They were also used as sex object too, and the owners used it as a source of income for them. The origin of this practice also lies in Islam.

Sunnan Abu Dawud, Kitab-ul-Talaq (link):

Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My owner forces me to commit fornication (in order to earn money from it). Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your slave-girls for prostitution."

Note: The writer of Quran limited it only to a recommendation (i.e. not to force them for prostitution), but he didn’t punish the owner for that?

But why?

The reasons are as under:

• Islam not only allowed the owner to rape the slave-girl, but also allowed the owner to present her as a gift to any other person, who could then rape the slave-girl too against her consent.
• And no “Witness” was needed in Islam for having sex with the slave woman. For example, Fatawa Alamgiri, vol 3, page 268, Urdu edition (link):
  Singular Report is enough in the religious issues. Therefore, if a slave woman comes to any person and tell him that her master has gifted me to you, then that person could trust that slave-girl and have sex with her.
• And the “witness” of a slave-woman (or slave-man) is not accepted in Islamic court. Actually, slaves are absolutely not allowed to go to the court against their owners. (We have already written in details about the “witness” of slaves above).

Therefore, due to these reasons, a slave-girl could cry as much as she can about her rape, but her witness is not accepted in any Islamic court, which makes it impossible that owner could be punished.

That is why, the writer of Quran (i.e. Muhammad), at maximum, only recommended the owners to not to force the slave-women for fornication, but he was unable to punish the owners for forcing their slave-girls for fornication, in order to earn money.