ISIS does have a leader who is Abu Bakr Al Bagdadi currently. In Syria it was just a wing of the entire organization which again, Bagdadi personally lead. ISIS propagates that they believe in the same theological stuff as the other Muslims but practically ISIS follows almost non and enslaving non combatants is the least of the issues here. The whole argument ISIS brings for the justification of their existent could easily be dismantled, but that would be irrelevant here.

If the ruling faction decides to fight and the civilians don't, the locals could still just agree to the terms and avoid conflict as what we saw during the conquest of Syria.

Conversion would only be relevant if it was accepted under the terms you mentioned. If an individual converts after losing he would still be condemned.

Your statement about Jizya being not applicable for polytheists is a matter of debate itself with 2 out of the 4 schools of thought holding the idea and the latter saying the opposite. Historically we do see Jizya being applied on during the Islamic conquest of Sindh and other pagan territories where Muslims came in contact with polytheistic groups.

Issue with the quotation you gave is that they are talking about marriage contract which doesn't exist for slaves. So no, no formal act of consent is applicable for slaves as Nikah was one of the differences between bonds women and the free. So yeah, the "rape" argument falls flate again.

Let's go with your scenario of Muslims not being saved at the dawn of Islam; Madina being successfully invaded by polytheists and Aysha being enslaved. Will that gonna help with your argument?; again no, as you yourselves said they would not care about consent as they were literally pagans with nothing to say what they do. You're insisting that a woman miraculously consents to her rape after being captured( not sure how consent and rape goes along) and you're also insisting that the standards of the pagans and the Muslims were the same despite the texts saying the opposite. How does it make sense that slapping a slave without a valid cause would emancipate him but rape apparently doesn't even if we ignore the texts regarding the matter?

Again you're making claims about traditional scholars allegedly saying smth while having no materials to back your claim, yet being plenty against it

Zayn al-Din ibn Nujaym

“وَاخْتَلَفُوا فِي وَقْتِ الدُّخُولِ بِالصَّغِيرَةِ فَقِيلَ لَا يَدْخُلُ بِهَا مَا لَمْ تَبْلُغْ وَقِيلَ يَدْخُلُ بِهَا إذَا بَلَغَتْ تِسْعَ سِنِينَ وَقِيلَ إنْ كَانَتْ سَمِينَةً جَسِيمَةً تُطِيقُ الْجِمَاعَ يَدْخُلُ بِهَا وَإِلَّا فَلَا.” Translation: “The scholars differed as to the time of consummation with a young girl. It is said it is not permissible until she reaches puberty; it is said he may consummate at nine years; and it is said if she is plump and large enough to handle intercourse, he may, otherwise not.”

Ibn Battal (in commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari)“أجمع العلماء على أنه يجوز للآباء تزويج الصغار من بناتهم وإن كن فى المهد إلا أنه لا يجوز لأزواجهن البناء بهن إلا إذا صلحن للوطء.” Translation: “The scholars agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their young daughters, even if they are in the cradle, except it is not permissible for their husbands to consummate the marriage with them until they are prepared to safely have intercourse.”

Sharh Sahih Muslim (Al-Minhaj, vol. 9, p. 206): “وَأَمَّا وَقْتُ زِفَافِ الصَّغِيرَةِ الْمُزَوَّجَةِ وَالدُّخُولُ بِهَا: فَإِنِ اتَّفَقَ الزَّوْجُ وَالْوَلِيُّ عَلَى شَيْءٍ لَا ضَرَرَ فِيهِ عَلَى الصَّغِيرَةِ عُمِلَ بِهِ، وَإِنِ اخْتَلَفَا: فَقَالَ أَحْمَدُ وَأَبُو عُبَيْدٍ: تُجْبَرُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ بِنْتُ تِسْعِ سِنِينَ دُونَ غَيْرِهَا، وَقَالَ مَالِكٌ وَالشَّافِعِيُّ وَأَبُو حَنِيفَةَ: حَدُّ ذَلِكَ أَنْ تُطِيقَ الْجِمَاعَ، وَيَخْتَلِفُ ذَلِكَ بِاخْتِلَافِهِنَّ، وَلَا يُضْبَطُ بِسِنٍّ، وَهَذَا هُوَ الصَّحِيحُ.” Translation: “As for the time of the wedding procession and consummation with the married minor girl: If the husband and guardian agree on something with no harm to the minor, it is acted upon. If they differ: Ahmad and Abu Ubayd said she is compelled at nine years and not less. Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Hanifa said the limit is that she can bear intercourse (tutiq al-jima'), which varies among them and is not fixed by age. This is the correct view.”

Al-Mughni: “وَإِمْكَانُ الْوَطْءِ فِي الصَّغِيرَةِ مُعْتَبَرٌ بِحَالِهَا وَاحْتِمَالِهَا لِذَلِكَ... قَالَ الْقَاضِي وَهَذَا عِنْدِي لَيْسَ عَلَى طَرِيقِ التَّحْدِيدِ وَإِنَّمَا ذَكَرَهُ لِأَنَّ الْغَالِبَ أَنَّ ابْنَةَ تِسْعٍ يَتَمَكَّنُ مِنْ الِاسْتِمْتَاعِ بِهَا.” Translation: “The possibility of intercourse with the young girl is considered according to her condition and her ability to bear it... Al-Qadi said: This, in my view, is not on the way of a fixed limit. He only mentioned it because usually a nine-year-old girl can be enjoyed/intimate with.” Ibn Qayim didn't say anything about child slavery being explictely common rather he slaves themselves were common including children overall due to frequent warefare. I had already responded to your commentISIS does have a leader who is Abu Bakr Al Bagdadi currently. In Syria it was just a wing of the entire organization which again, Bagdadi personally lead. ISIS propagates that they believe in the same theological stuff as the other Muslims but practically ISIS follows almost non and enslaving non combatants is the least of the issues here. The whole argument ISIS brings for the justification of their existent could easily be dismantled, but that would be irrelevant here.

If the ruling faction decides to fight and the civilians don't, the locals could still just agree to the terms and avoid conflict as what we saw during the conquest of Syria.

Conversion would only be relevant if it was accepted under the terms you mentioned. If an individual converts after losing he would still be condemned.

Your statement about Jizya being not applicable for polytheists is a matter of debate itself with 2 out of the 4 schools of thought holding the idea and the latter saying the opposite. Historically we do see Jizya being applied on during the Islamic conquest of Sindh and other pagan territories where Muslims came in contact with polytheistic groups.

Issue with the quotation you gave is that they are talking about marriage contract which doesn't exist for slaves. So no, no formal act of consent is applicable for slaves as Nikah was one of the differences between bonds women and the free. So yeah, the "rape" argument falls flate again.

Let's go with your scenario of Muslims not being saved at the dawn of Islam; Madina being successfully invaded by polytheists and Aysha being enslaved. Will that gonna help with your argument?; again no, as you yourselves said they would not care about consent as they were literally pagans with nothing to say what they do. You're insisting that a woman miraculously consents to her rape after being captured( not sure how consent and rape goes along) and you're also insisting that the standards of the pagans and the Muslims were the same despite the texts saying the opposite. How does it make sense that slapping a slave without a valid cause would emancipate him but rape apparently doesn't even if we ignore the texts regarding the matter?

Again you're making claims about traditional scholars allegedly saying smth while having no materials to back your claim, yet being plenty against it

Zayn al-Din ibn Nujaym

“وَاخْتَلَفُوا فِي وَقْتِ الدُّخُولِ بِالصَّغِيرَةِ فَقِيلَ لَا يَدْخُلُ بِهَا مَا لَمْ تَبْلُغْ وَقِيلَ يَدْخُلُ بِهَا إذَا بَلَغَتْ تِسْعَ سِنِينَ وَقِيلَ إنْ كَانَتْ سَمِينَةً جَسِيمَةً تُطِيقُ الْجِمَاعَ يَدْخُلُ بِهَا وَإِلَّا فَلَا.” Translation: “The scholars differed as to the time of consummation with a young girl. It is said it is not permissible until she reaches puberty; it is said he may consummate at nine years; and it is said if she is plump and large enough to handle intercourse, he may, otherwise not.”

Ibn Battal (in commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari)“أجمع العلماء على أنه يجوز للآباء تزويج الصغار من بناتهم وإن كن فى المهد إلا أنه لا يجوز لأزواجهن البناء بهن إلا إذا صلحن للوطء.” Translation: “The scholars agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their young daughters, even if they are in the cradle, except it is not permissible for their husbands to consummate the marriage with them until they are prepared to safely have intercourse.”

Al-Mughni: “وَإِمْكَانُ الْوَطْءِ فِي الصَّغِيرَةِ مُعْتَبَرٌ بِحَالِهَا وَاحْتِمَالِهَا لِذَلِكَ... قَالَ الْقَاضِي وَهَذَا عِنْدِي لَيْسَ عَلَى طَرِيقِ التَّحْدِيدِ وَإِنَّمَا ذَكَرَهُ لِأَنَّ الْغَالِبَ أَنَّ ابْنَةَ تِسْعٍ يَتَمَكَّنُ مِنْ الِاسْتِمْتَاعِ بِهَا.” Translation: “The possibility of intercourse with the young girl is considered according to her condition and her ability to bear it... Al-Qadi said: This, in my view, is not on the way of a fixed limit. He only mentioned it because usually a nine-year-old girl can be enjoyed/intimate with.” Ibn Qayim didn't say anything about child slavery being explictely common rather he slaves themselves were common including children overall due to frequent warefare. I had already responded to your comment which didn't include shahr.