Apostate prophet exposes ancient crimes; raping war captives?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Rape Culture"

That these mulk yamin cannot be forced into intimacy by the guardian is exemplified through the story of prophet Yusuf, bought as a slave and whom his mistress wanted to abuse sexually under the threat of emprisonnement. The Quran condemns such action, calls it an indecency/fahisha for the owner of a slave to have intercourse with him/her under compulsion 12:24 a grave fault and a manifest error 12:29-30. Yusuf desired to keep his chastity so he repeatedly refused, being God's sincere servant he was protected and guided away from transgression, even willingly preferring emprisonnement than succombing to the sin 12:24-35 (see Ps105:19). Temptation is something any human being, regardless of his uprightness, might be subject to. Merit lies in whether one acts upon that temptation when in the full capacity to do it, or restrains oneself.

Just as the Quran condemned Yusuf's mistress from acting against her servant's desire to remain chaste, the Quran prohibits the guardian from acting contrary to his mulk yamin's desire for chastity, such as by forcing her into prostitution as was the custom in pre-islamic times. If he nevertheless does so, despite the prohibition, then the abused woman is certainly not to blame due to her weak background 24:33. In 4:36 the Quran speaks of how they must be treated with kindness, without pride as one would treat the parents, neighbors or the weak in society. This means their guardians cannot abuse them in anyway just as one would not abuse the other groups mentioned in the verse

"He who slaps his slave or beats him, there is no expiation for this but to free him".

As the prophet here clearly instructs, physical abuse is a transgression that must be expiated.

The Quran thus opens many different options to those categories, besides encouraging their kind treatment. In 4:3 Allah is commanding the believers who has orphans under his care towards whom he fears not to fulfill all his responsibility to marry up to 4 women but if he thinks he cannot deal in fairness with multiple wives, to marry

"only one or/aw Ma Malakat Aymanukum",

meaning a legal wife for a man who fears not to deal justly between multiple wives can be either a regular woman who is protected and supported/muhsana OR Ma Malakat Ayman already in his possession. Therefore marrying malakat ayman according to 4:3, and other passages like 4:25, is as acceptable as marrying a normal woman and further 24:32 strongly encourages men and women to marry from their male/female slaves as an act of virtue.

The Hebrew Bible sanctioned letter for letter by Jesus, allows the extermination of entire population save their virgins, regardless of age. All visibly mature women are killed while the visibly virgin, meaning children, are distributed among the invading Israelites Numbers31:17-18etc. The Hebrew speaks of "every woman who can lie with a man" in contrast to the "young girls who have no experience of intimate relation with a man". The text is thus clearly speaking in terms of physical appearance. Obviously the soldiers weren't going around verifying each captive's private parts to distinguish the virgins. Those children may be disposed of according to one's whims, as the passage gives no regulation in the matter. This is in the context of genocidal warfare, binding on Jews of all times where specific nations must be annihilated, like the Amalekites and six other Canaanite nations and any of their descendants whenever they are identified Deut20:16,25:19. 

In another context, that of optional warfare, Deut21 instructs the soldiers to marry the captive he lusts for, prior to sexual intimacy. She has no choice and say in the matter. She is brought to the soldier's household, her hair trimmed (the Hebrew does not mean shaved off), nails shortened, previous clothes put aside, and given a month to mourn her decimated family, right in front of her captors' eyes v13. The passage only mentions her murdered parents, which implies again she could be very young, or mature and unmarried (unlikely in those days for a woman that is so attractive that the soldier lusts after), or with a husband who is still alive. The altering of her physical appearance is understood differently among the commentators, some seeing it as a means by which she is beautified, and others that she is made purposefully unattractive. If after that process the Jewish man still lusts for her, he may then marry her, keeping her alongside the "preferred" wife. If not, she is simply abandoned to fend off for herself, returning to whatever is left of her ravaged home. 

As already said, Numbers31 and Deut21 are contextually unrelated. This undermines the argument that marriage is always a precondition to sexual intimacy. In Numbers31 the option of forced marriage isnt given as the female captive is from among the nations whom the Israelites are to be at war with forever, whose population, men women and children, are to be mercilessly killed to the last one by divine decree. Marrying from among their captives would contradict that ordinance. In Deut21, the context is that of optional wars, whose targets are people outside those concerned by the decree of extermination, hence the option of forceful marriage. In that sub-category, the Israelites are permitted to prey on the weak nation of their choice, subdue and abuse its people as they wish. These are the wars labelled up to this day by the rabbis as wars of "national glory". This isnt a war necessary for the survival of the Jewish people, or in response to provocation, not even under divine injunction. In such a case a random nation is given the choice between a "peaceful" surrender, that would result in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting in the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock Deut20:10-14.

Should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation

2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".

In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings (Eleazar ben Shammua) , the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah. 

That is what the Quran would have looked like, and how it would have instructed its people to behave towards the foreign nations and the weak that come under their possession, had it been penned by the ancients of its time to whom such attitude was regarded as expected and acceptable. The Quran changed the way such categories of people that already existed in the society it came to reform, had to be treated. It did so by igniting the believers' taqwa/God-consciousness, elevating the status of such weak categories whom there was now no shame of marrying 4:3,25,24:32,33:50 and honoring them as one would honnor the closest family members 4:36.