And I disagree with her assertion that this verse has ANYTHING to do with the matter at hand..
in addition, her cross-reference the word "mu'mineen" as mentioning all believers in one god excludes the basic pre-condition that these "believers" cannot commit Shirk..which in Islamic refers to in terms of believing Jesus as the son of God.. That in itself turns her whole argument upside down which in itself seems more apologetic rather than looking strictly at the text. I have read the interpretation of Ibn-Kathir which she mentioned frequently.. and it seems like my understanding of what is written in it is entirely different from hers.
Lets take another verse that is more direct that she has given as reference...
First, she has done academic dishonesty by excluding the word Women from the translation as Ibn-Kathir(whom she refers to) has done so clearly. Which makes her message..and the statement she gives here.. rather ironic
Clearly she did not show the same when tackling the subject to not paraphrase if she was quoting. The premise then extends to only Muslim men and not women. Even if it did not extend to just Men, the Women would be forbidden to marry the non-Muslim purely on the basis of him being un-chaste as neither Judaism nor Christianity are as strict as Islam on alcohol or pre-martial sex as Islam is in definition of Chastity( the irony is that by this strict definition of chastity a lot of Muslim men and women are also un-chaste in today's Muslim society).
As I have stated before, this is less of a defence of Islam or its laws...and more of stating it as plainly as it is without the apologies that seem to follow/precede other views.
Next time appreciate the attempt made.
