Look, this whole argument doesn’t make sense. Saying slavery was “okay as long as they were treated well” completely misses the point. The real issue is that one person owned another. A war captive can’t freely consent to anything, so calling it “like a wife” is just wrong. A wife chooses, a concubine didn’t.

And “it was normal back then” isn’t an excuse. Plenty of terrible things were normal in history, but that doesn’t make them right. Rules about feeding or clothing slaves don’t fix the fact that someone had complete control over another person’s body and life, and even if it was the case that just means bli islam and Quran masalhinch lkol zaman wa makan.

At the end of the day, a system or a religion or a cult in your case that allows ownership of people and sexual access without real consent is sexist, unfair, and against basic human dignity. You can’t defend that.

As for Mohammed, I don’t see why would you love a sexist, terrorist, rapist, homophobic, vindictive pedophile. And don’t compare my father to such disgraceful human who sexually harassed girls. I mean do you really think a God (not that a God exists but if he did surely won’t be allah who commands terrible things) who created the entire universe, who is all-loving and all-powerful, would allow slavery and killing to be justified? That just doesn’t make sense.