But when did I sully religions??
I was talking about men who use religious texts (misinterpretated texts) and holy man's words as god's word's to suppress women folk.
DISCLAIMER: Any religious critique will result in a ban for the offending member, questions are welcome but bigotry is not.
Now, Levine.. Ill highlight the problem by looking at it as both a Muslim and a third party observer.In addition, I will tackle those apologists who wish to garble the matter around semantics on the clarity of the edict regarding the issue of a Muslim girl marrying a non-muslim man.
I will start with an incorrect argument that has been given on common sites(such as wikipedia) in this matter.
The background for this issue is usually given with verse 60:10. The previous verses all speak about friendship and relations with those non-Muslims who have declared war with islam previously and are more than likely to detract Islam and speak against it when given the chance, that they hold grudges and hence friendship with such people is not-recommended/forbidden.
The particular verse talking about looking at Muslim Women "refugees". But there has to be a look at the context of it. This verse was revealed along the time after a peace treaty was made between the Prophet and the non-Muslims of Mecca. The terms of the treaty.. literally translated were as following
They have agreed to lay down the burden of war for ten years, in which times men shall be safe and not lay violent hands the one upon the other; on condition that whoso cometh unto Muhammad of Quraysh without the leave of his guardian, Muhammad shall return him unto them; but whoso cometh unto Quraysh(non-muslims) of those who are with Muhammad, they shall not be returned. There shall be no subterfuge and no treachery. And whoso wisheth to enter into the bond and pact of Muhammad may do so; and whoso wisheth to enter the bond and pact of Quraysh(non-muslims) may do so
Essentially, it refer to the right of extradition for people coming and going from the different sides. Differing accounts point to the case of a woman who left the side of the non-Muslims to go to the Prophet's camp. Her husband asked for her return and she refused.. upon which this verse came about.
A reasonably well backed review of the incident is as follows ..taken from here.
Surah al-Mumtahana, Chapter 60 | An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Qur'an vol. 18 | Books on Islam and Muslims | Al-Islam.org
A certain woman by the name of Subay‘a converted to the Islamic faith at the time and joined the Muslims at Hudaybiyya. Her husband went to the Noble Prophet (S) and asked for her return to him as per the newly concluded treaty. The blessed Verse in question was revealed commanding the Muslims to examine the emigrant women in terms of their faith.
Ibn ‘Abbas is quoted as saying that they were examined by being asked to take an oath to the effect that their emigration had not been owing to hatred against their husbands nor liking for the new land nor for any other mundane goal but they had emigrated solely for the sake of the Islamic faith. The woman in question took the oath.
Thus, Allah's Messenger (S) reimbursed the mahr paid by her husband and the other expenses borne by him saying that the treaty solely includes men rather than women. Such occasion of Revelation is mentioned in the majority of Sunni and Shi‘i exegetic sources.
The blessed Verse depicts a clear picture of the Islamic faith as the one fostering justice. Firstly, the emigrated woman is not left on her own. Secondly, the right of the disbelieving husband is not ignored but the mahr and other expenses borne by him are reimbursed from the Muslim public treasury (bayt al-mal).
The last decree treats of those women who turn away from the Islamic faith to join disbelievers saying whoever of the women turning away from the Islamic faith is supposed to pay the bridal gift in the same manner as those women who turn to the Islamic faith and whose bridal gift is supposed to be paid to their former husbands.
Now, the issue in question here wherein the idea of Muslim women not being fit for Non-Muslim men came in from. The verse clearly talks about the time of the treaty and if taken in a later perspective about those leaving their non-Muslim husbands for Muslim men. In today's context it might mean that the Muslim man or state should compensate the non-Muslim guy for his expenditure on the woman for him taking the other fellows bride. For a woman that
leaves Islam to go with the non-Muslim fellow, it means that she returns the "Mahr" to her Muslim husband.
This is clearly linked to the treaty mentioned earlier.. and has very vague implications especially this matter. So how did a verse that was revealed in context of a treaty suddenly become relevant to the harassment of a woman and her husband?
The truth is that this verse has little relevance to the matter as will be seen throughout those arguments that bring this up. Time and time again it is defined that marriage is a matter of faith as well as a social bond throughout the Quran. Hence belief can only co-exist with belief and not otherwise. This has both spiritual and religious background and implications and goes to another verse (24:3).. which refers to that women of dis-belief only gather men of dis-belief. Hence, regardless of how the woman feels, whether or not she had pre-marital sex with the man.. her choosing a man of dis-belief and his
remaining a dis-believer voids the idea that the bond between them be considered a legal marriage in Islamic terms and hence its only status is that of sexual activity. Hence the woman is NOT in line with Islamic teachings.. and that aspect of the matter then remains with herself and God.
NOW, how does this reflect upon the actions of those in her society. First, the girl does serve as an influence to other girls to consider faith as a secondary matter in their choices for partner.. hence it is a threat to the integrity of Muslims all around the girl that their women too choose a non-believer over a believer. It reflects on the future of the Muslim society's growth and propagation of Islamic values. In addition, since this bond is NOT considered marriage.. and essentially sexual in nature..the spread of pre-martial sex is likely to follow suit which only adds to the status of the girls act as detrimental to society. In a nutshell, her act is NOT sanctioned nor allowed nor to be condoned by ANY muslim.
Finally, what actions are to be undertaken regarding her. This has less background in the Quran.. the verse previous to the one I mentioned (24:2) talks of women with bad character(prostitutes etc) who are to be lashed/banished from the society(
on the condition that Muslims rule the area and an Islamic state exists) due to their bad influence on the rest of Muslim society. In this case the treatment too depends upon the existence of the Islamic state where she lives or not. If there is an Islamic state, the woman(and her
non-muslim husband) are to be banished from it to non-muslim lands. If the area is not an Islamic state(as is the case here).. the only act permitted is a complete social boycott of the woman to minimize her influence on the rest of society. There is to be NO abuse, NO stoning, NO threats.. NO killing or anything whatsoever. The LAWS OF THE STATE in which the Muslims reside MUST be followed.
I hope that clarifies both what is stated by Islam on the matter and what is the required reaction of the Muslim society around her(in both cases).
Ill repeat the disclaimer
DISCLAIMER: Any religious abuse or bigotry will result in a ban for the offending member, questions are welcome but bigotry is not. 
