Not gonna waste time writing a lot to respond to your bs. Slavery in Islam has already been explained, search it up. You don’t have any objective morals, you shouldn’t even talk about Islam or religion.
Secondly you’re using the same refuted bullshit critics use against Islam about Safiyya. Safiyya (ra) was given the choice to go back to her people or accept Islam and marry the Prophet, she choice to marry the Prophet and accept Islam.
Also the Quran text doesn’t say anything about rape, rape is haram in islam.
Imam Malik said:
In our view the man who rapes a woman, regardless of whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a "dowry" like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist (Imam Maalik, Al-Muwatta', Volume 2, page 734)
Imam Al Shaafi’i said:
"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i, Kitaabul Umm, Volume 3, page 253)
Thirdly you’re ignorant, concubines throughout history consented to have intercourse and this has been confirmed by non Muslim professionals.
John McClintock said:
Women who followed their father and husbands to the war put on their finest dresses and ornaments previous to an engagement, in the hope of finding favor in the eyes of their captors in case of a defeat. (John McClintock, James Strong, "Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature" [Harper & Brothers, 1894], p. 782)
Matthew B. Schwartz said:
The Book of Deuteronomy prescribes its own rules for the treatment of women captured in war [ Deut 21:10-14 ] . Women have always followed armies to do the soldiers' laundry, to nurse the sick and wounded, and to serve as prostitutes
They would often dress in such a way as to attract the soldiers who won the battle. The Bible recognizes the realities of the battle situation in its rules on how to treat female captives, though commentators disagree on some of the details.
The biblical Israelite went to battle as a messenger of God. Yet he could also, of course, be caught up in the raging tide of blood and violence. The Western mind associates prowess, whether military or athletic, with sexual success.
The pretty girls crowd around the hero who scores the winning touchdown, not around the players of the losing team. And it is certainly true in war: the winning hero "attracts" the women.(Matthew B. Schwartz, Kalman J. Kaplan, "The Fruit of Her Hands: The Psychology of Biblical Women" [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007] , pp. 146-147)
Thus we see from two non-Muslim authors that concubines back in the past would consent to having sex with their captors. So if we put aside our 21st century mindset and look at history objectively, there is nothing wrong with saying that concubines back then consented to having sex with their captors.