An accused ISIS bride is still a threat to the community because there is no compelling evidence that she renounces the terror group, a prosecutor has claimed.
Lawyers for Zeinab Ahmad, 31, on Monday told Melbourne Magistrates Court she rejected Islamic State and held deep anger towards the men who enforced its ideals upon her.
But prosecutor Andrew Sprague on Tuesday argued the only "clear and objective" evidence available to the court showed Ahmad's support for IS.
He pointed to social media posts Ahmad allegedly made in 2015 and 2016 where she called for violence against non-believers and the destruction of the US and its allies.
"(Her statements) have endorsed and supported an ideology and a terrorist organisation that is fundamentally opposed to the freedom and safety of all those who do not share its views," Mr Sprague said.
"Without any compelling evidence of renunciation of these beliefs, the court should conclude the risk to the public remains unacceptable."
Ahmad was charged with slavery offences in May after returning to Australia with other so-called "ISIS brides" and their children.
It's alleged Ahmad moved to Syria with her first husband Dawod in January 2015 and he became a member of Islamic State before he was killed in a drone strike in May 2016.
Federal police allege it was while she was living with her family in 2017 that Ahmad's father Mohammad bought a teenage girl as a slave for $US10,000.
It's alleged the girl was repeatedly raped and beaten by Mohammad, with the claimed attacks including an incident where she was hit and dragged down two flights of stairs by the hair.
On Tuesday, defence barrister Grace Morgan argued her client's statements to a psychologist, where she referenced her time in Syria as being "11 years of hell", showed she opposed IS.
But Mr Sprague said those comments were made to a psychologist assessing her child and Ahmad did not undergo any tests to assess the likelihood of her providing misleading answers.
"The court cannot give weight to that version as an accurate record of (Ahmad's) ideology," he said.
Mr Sprague argued there were no bail conditions that could reduce the risk to the community and therefore bail should be denied.
He also rejected the defence's claims that there would be lengthy delays in the case, telling the magistrate that was merely speculation.
The seriousness of the allegations, with the charges each carrying a maximum jail term of 25 years, meant the potential sentence could be lengthy as well, the prosecutor said.
Mr Sprague accepted the defence submission that Ahmad's separation from her daughter was difficult for the young girl but he questioned the claim it amounted to hardship.
He noted the evidence before the court showed the young girl was attending school and being well cared for by close family members.
Ms Morgan did not dispute the evidence but said the child's main stress remained her separation from Ahmad.
The defence barrister also re-emphasised her client's rejection of IS, noting she had made the statements in open court and the claims had been published widely by the media.
Chief Magistrate Lisa Hannan is expected to hand down her bail decision on Wednesday.
