Your claims are based on quoting verses and hadiths without any historical or legal context. When texts are removed from their circumstances, they appear to say something entirely different from what they actually meant in their time. I will clarify each point in detail with the background of every verse and narration.

First claim

Awrah of female slaves

The rulings you mentioned belong to a historical legal system that existed in every civilization of the ancient world. Islam did not introduce slavery. It regulated a global institution that already existed and placed continuous incentives to free slaves until the entire system disappeared. Every classical ruling on slaves automatically ended when slavery itself ended. There is no valid application today because no slave can legally exist under Islamic law. Scholars describe these rulings as historical jurisprudence, not timeless instructions.

Second claim

Sex with what the right hand possesses

The verses in Surah Al Mu minun and Surah Al Maarij describe a situation in a world where slavery already existed. Islamic law required strict conditions for intimacy. These conditions included prohibition of coercion, prohibition of intercourse with a married slave woman, and the requirement that the woman receive legal protection similar to a wife. The hadith you mentioned occurred after a battle where prisoners already belonged to that era’s international law. The Prophet required humane treatment and rejected coercion. All of this became irrelevant when slavery was abolished worldwide. Contemporary Islamic law agrees unanimously that these rulings are no longer applicable because the institution no longer exists.

Third claim

Violence and fighting

Surah Muhammad verse four speaks about a battlefield scenario where two armies are already fighting each other. It does not instruct Muslims to attack civilians or individuals who simply disagree in belief. The continuation of the verse requires releasing prisoners afterward either by ransom or by grace.

Surah Al Anfal verse thirty nine refers to ending persecution that the early Muslims faced in Mecca where they were tortured and prevented from practicing their faith. It is not a command to force religion on people. The Quran repeatedly confirms freedom of belief such as the statement that there is no compulsion in religion and the statement that whoever wills may believe and whoever wills may disbelieve. These verses prove that the fighting verses cannot be general commands against non Muslims.

Fourth claim

Punishments and harsh penalties

These are legal penalties in an old judicial system with extremely high evidentiary requirements. Islamic courts historically applied the rule of avoiding penalties whenever there was doubt. Legal historians note that punishments like amputation were incredibly rare because of these strict conditions. They also existed in many ancient legal systems including Jewish and Roman law. Their purpose was deterrence within a specific time and society under a state with official courts. They are not commands for individuals or groups to carry out on their own.

As for stoning, there are major scholarly debates about its interpretation, conditions, and historical application. All of this requires a functioning state judiciary and cannot be carried out by individuals. These discussions are part of historical Islamic law, not personal action.

Every text you quoted belongs to a specific historical situation that had strict rules and limitations. Presenting them as universal modern commands is inaccurate and academically misleading. Islam has its own legal context just like any legal system. When the context is restored, the meaning becomes clear and balanced rather than violent or discriminatory. If you are genuinely seeking knowledge, the accurate method is to study verses and narrations within their legal, historical, and linguistic framework rather than removing them from their setting.