Why can't a Muslimah marry a Jew of a Christian? (Split)

[Baygham]

because Allah says so

duuuuh!!

That one is the best. And to cap it off with Duuuuh, so midwestern, I love it.

I could use that one.

You wanna get educated; nahhh, why? 'cause Allah says so,

You inherit half; Why? 'cause Allah says so,

you are tired, nahhhh, wont do; Why? 'cause Allah says so,

Shut up; Why? 'cause Allah says so, Duuuuhhhh



That could be a good rap song.

[Roshina]

I read your post several times, Barakzai, and still did not get the (or an) answer to my question, which is:

If the ahlal kitab are considered mushrikeen, then how do you explain1) the Quranic verse that tells Muslim men very clearly that Christian and Jewish women are permitted to them for marriage, and 2) the Quranic verses that tell BOTH Muslim women and man that the mushrikeen are forbidden to them in marriage?

What I mean is this:

Yes, no doubt that the word mushrik means (literally) someone who indulges in shirk. Yes, what most Christians do can be considered shirk. BUT! If Christians are mushrikeen, then how did God allow Muslim men to marry Christian women? (I'm not gonna ask why He forbade Muslim women from marrying Christian men since the Quran doesn't support that stance, but I'm gonna ask it knowing that most Muslims believe the Quran forbids it.)

So my query remains unanswered. It LOOKS like you answered it, yes, because you do explain it. But here are my comments:

- You say verse 5:176 deems Christians disbelievers (yes, it does -- although not Christians in general; they remain "People of the Book" with a special place in the Quran). Then you said:

Surah 60 Ayaat10 Makes it apparent that the general term kaafir (covering idolators (mushriq) and ahle kitaab as I DEFINITVELY proved above in surah 5 verse 17) precludes women from marrying a kaafir.

The verse precludes just women from marrying kaafirs? Are you sure? Because the full verse 60:10 reads:

"O you who have believed, when the believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them. Allah is most knowing as to their faith. And if you know them to be believers, then do not return them to the disbelievers; they are not lawful [wives] for them, nor are they lawful [husbands] for them. But give the disbelievers what they have spent. And there is no blame upon you if you marry them when you have given them their due compensation. And hold not to marriage bonds with disbelieving women, but ask for what you have spent and let them ask for what they have spent. That is the judgement of Allah ; He judges between you. And Allah is Knowing and Wise."


In case that's not enough, though, take a look at verse 2:21, the verse that most Muslims often cite to support their claim that Muslim women aren't allowed to marry even Christians and Jews:

"AND DO NOT marry unbelieving women [mushrikaat]until they believe: for any believing bondwoman [of God] is certainly better than a woman who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though she please you greatly. And do not give your women in marriage to unbelieving men [mushrikeen] until they believe: for- any believing bondman [of God] is certainly better than a man who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though he please you greatly. [Such as] these invite unto the fire, whereas God invites unto paradise, and unto [the achievement of] forgiveness by His leave; and He makes clear His messages unto mankind, so that they might bear them in mind."

Do you get where my dilemma lies now, Barakzai? THAT's my question that no one is answering. If Christians and Jews are disbelievers, then how do you explain the verse above and the verse that makes it clear that Muslim men MAY marry Christian and Jewish women (Surah 5)?

By the way, in your post, in your explanation of the verse that tells men not to let their women marry disbelieving men, do you see what I see? Do you see the social and historical context in which it was clearly revealed? One therefore is compelled to ask: If the reason a woman can't marry a disbeliever (disbeliever here only means NON-Christians and NON-Jews) is because then their husbands won't let them go to Mecca or practice Islam, then what if a husband in the 21st century doesn't believe in "allowing" or "disallowing" his wife anything and seeing her as an equal partner, a full human who can make her own decisions using her own mind? Can she marry him then?

Kho, khair, that's an entirely different focus. I'm just trying to understand how you explain the verse that forbids ALL Muslims from marrying disbelievers and the verse that allows men to marry chaste women from the People of the Book -- and doesn't forbid women. It completely leaves out the idea of women marrying "chaste men" among the People of the Book. Why do we have to assume that it's forbidden then? Can a Muslim woman marry chaste men from the People of the Book? This is the ultimate question.

Having said that, would you then make the same argument that many Muslims today make -- namely, Muslim men can marry only those chaste Christian women who DO NOT believe that Jesus (pbuh) is the son of God? If so, is that not making exceptions to God's rules when He has not made any exceptions besides chastity?

And there again, we'd be practicing hermeneutics, something that few Muslims would support, whether or not they believe that Muslims are not allowed to marry disbelievers.

However, lemme go over your points to explain why I'm still confused.

Apropos your comment about the seal of the Prophet, are you aware of the debate on the way the Quran describes the "seal" of the Prophets? For instance, there are Muslim scholars (I consider them Muslim; others might disagree) who argue that if the Quran really intended to say that no prophet will ever come after Muhammad (pbuh), then the word to use would have been "akhir" instead of "khatim." They assert that "khatim" actually has several meanings, among which is the guide, the epitome, the ultimate example.

I'm perfectly aware of the concept and practice of hermeneutics; that's the specific field I'm involved in within Islamic Studies, in fact, because I find it the most confusing, most challenging of anything I've ever been introduced to.

And so I can give you hundreds of examples on the Quranic terms that are still debated, despite us average Muslims' screams here and there that everything has already been discussed and that everything's simple. No, it's actually not simple if you study it a bit more deeply. And the reason it's not simple is that most Muslims live by the consensus of the classical and medieval Muslim jurists' interpretation of Islam while a rising group of Muslims is contesting those interpretation, not dismissing them as wrong necessarily but as acceptable for only a certain time and society and not for all times. If Islam is for all people of all times and all societies, then it must be re-interpreted -- and re-interpreted not just by men but by women as well, since, needless to remind everyone, women's voices have always been excluded from Islamic hermeneutics and Quranic exegesis (tafseer). That's not just the case with Muslims, though; non-Muslims are living in the same hell.

However, it's good to know that you are familiar with the concept of interpretation! Now I don't have to worry about defining every term and explaining what I mean in the most basic terms.

But ... you're using exegeses to support your definitions of the terms in question; you are telling me the exact same things said by our classical Muslim jurists/scholars, whose views and interpretations have influenced a majority of Muslim scholars today. I instead want us to use textual context, Quranic verses, to justify our points. Otherwise, you're being no different from the average Muslim who says, "Look, we're not scholars, okay? We have no right to discuss these things. It's haraam in Islam to have an opinion, and so we shouldn't be deciding what's wrong and right." No, I'm not deciding what's wrong and right. And nothing in Islam forbids me the right to question the interpretations of the scholars. I have utmost respect for our interpreters, scholars, jurists, and I even wish that our scholars today would use the methodology of our scholars of the past. At least they recognized each other's viewpoints, acknowledged them as POSSIBLY correct, and didn't immediately dismiss them as wrong or un-Islamic. Which "scholars" do that today?

I hope it's clear what I'm saying -- though all of it has been said in this exact same thread in previous posts of mine

[Roshina]

because Allah says so

duuuuh!!

THANK YOU!! That's all ANYONE has to say! All other answers are merely apologists' ways of defending claims that can't be defended.

But then again ... that leads to the question of:

Where did God say (which verse) that a Muslim woman can't marry a Jew or a Christian? Or can she marry only chaste Christians or Jews the way Muslim men are allowed? If not, why not? Just because God never said they can?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I read your post several times, Barakzai, and still did not get the (or an) answer to my question, which is:

If the ahlal kitab are considered mushrikeen, then how do you explain1) the Quranic verse that tells Muslim men very clearly that Christian and Jewish women are permitted to them for marriage, and 2) the Quranic verses that tell BOTH Muslim women and man that the mushrikeen are forbidden to them in marriage?

What I mean is this:

Yes, no doubt that the word mushrik means (literally) someone who indulges in shirk. Yes, what most Christians do can be considered shirk. BUT! If Christians are mushrikeen, then how did God allow Muslim men to marry Christian women? (I'm not gonna ask why He forbade Muslim women from marrying Christian men since the Quran doesn't support that stance, but I'm gonna ask it knowing that most Muslims believe the Quran forbids it.)

So my query remains unanswered. It LOOKS like you answered it, yes, because you do explain it. But here are my comments:

- You say verse 5:176 deems Christians disbelievers (yes, it does -- although not Christians in general; they remain "People of the Book" with a special place in the Quran). Then you said:




The verse precludes just women from marrying kaafirs? Are you sure? Because the full verse 60:10 reads:

"O you who have believed, when the believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them. Allah is most knowing as to their faith. And if you know them to be believers, then do not return them to the disbelievers; they are not lawful [wives] for them, nor are they lawful [husbands] for them. But give the disbelievers what they have spent. And there is no blame upon you if you marry them when you have given them their due compensation. And hold not to marriage bonds with disbelieving women, but ask for what you have spent and let them ask for what they have spent. That is the judgement of Allah ; He judges between you. And Allah is Knowing and Wise."


In case that's not enough, though, take a look at verse 2:21, the verse that most Muslims often cite to support their claim that Muslim women aren't allowed to marry even Christians and Jews:

"AND DO NOT marry unbelieving women [mushrikaat]until they believe: for any believing bondwoman [of God] is certainly better than a woman who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though she please you greatly. And do not give your women in marriage to unbelieving men [mushrikeen] until they believe: for- any believing bondman [of God] is certainly better than a man who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though he please you greatly. [Such as] these invite unto the fire, whereas God invites unto paradise, and unto [the achievement of] forgiveness by His leave; and He makes clear His messages unto mankind, so that they might bear them in mind."

Do you get where my dilemma lies now, Barakzai? THAT's my question that no one is answering. If Christians and Jews are disbelievers, then how do you explain the verse above and the verse that makes it clear that Muslim men MAY marry Christian and Jewish women (Surah 5)?

By the way, in your post, in your explanation of the verse that tells men not to let their women marry disbelieving men, do you see what I see? Do you see the social and historical context in which it was clearly revealed? One therefore is compelled to ask: If the reason a woman can't marry a disbeliever (disbeliever here only means NON-Christians and NON-Jews) is because then their husbands won't let them go to Mecca or practice Islam, then what if a husband in the 21st century doesn't believe in "allowing" or "disallowing" his wife anything and seeing her as an equal partner, a full human who can make her own decisions using her own mind? Can she marry him then?

Kho, khair, that's an entirely different focus. I'm just trying to understand how you explain the verse that forbids ALL Muslims from marrying disbelievers and the verse that allows men to marry chaste women from the People of the Book -- and doesn't forbid women. It completely leaves out the idea of women marrying "chaste men" among the People of the Book. Why do we have to assume that it's forbidden then? Can a Muslim woman marry chaste men from the People of the Book? This is the ultimate question.

Having said that, would you then make the same argument that many Muslims today make -- namely, Muslim men can marry only those chaste Christian women who DO NOT believe that Jesus (pbuh) is the son of God? If so, is that not making exceptions to God's rules when He has not made any exceptions besides chastity?

And there again, we'd be practicing hermeneutics, something that few Muslims would support, whether or not they believe that Muslims are not allowed to marry disbelievers.

However, lemme go over your points to explain why I'm still confused.

Apropos your comment about the seal of the Prophet, are you aware of the debate on the way the Quran describes the "seal" of the Prophets? For instance, there are Muslim scholars (I consider them Muslim; others might disagree) who argue that if the Quran really intended to say that no prophet will ever come after Muhammad (pbuh), then the word to use would have been "akhir" instead of "khatim." They assert that "khatim" actually has several meanings, among which is the guide, the epitome, the ultimate example.

I'm perfectly aware of the concept and practice of hermeneutics; that's the specific field I'm involved in within Islamic Studies, in fact, because I find it the most confusing, most challenging of anything I've ever been introduced to.

And so I can give you hundreds of examples on the Quranic terms that are still debated, despite us average Muslims' screams here and there that everything has already been discussed and that everything's simple. No, it's actually not simple if you study it a bit more deeply. And the reason it's not simple is that most Muslims live by the consensus of the classical and medieval Muslim jurists' interpretation of Islam while a rising group of Muslims is contesting those interpretation, not dismissing them as wrong necessarily but as acceptable for only a certain time and society and not for all times. If Islam is for all people of all times and all societies, then it must be re-interpreted -- and re-interpreted not just by men but by women as well, since, needless to remind everyone, women's voices have always been excluded from Islamic hermeneutics and Quranic exegesis (tafseer). That's not just the case with Muslims, though; non-Muslims are living in the same hell.

However, it's good to know that you are familiar with the concept of interpretation! Now I don't have to worry about defining every term and explaining what I mean in the most basic terms.

But ... you're using exegeses to support your definitions of the terms in question; you are telling me the exact same things said by our classical Muslim jurists/scholars, whose views and interpretations have influenced a majority of Muslim scholars today. I instead want us to use textual context, Quranic verses, to justify our points. Otherwise, you're being no different from the average Muslim who says, "Look, we're not scholars, okay? We have no right to discuss these things. It's haraam in Islam to have an opinion, and so we shouldn't be deciding what's wrong and right." No, I'm not deciding what's wrong and right. And nothing in Islam forbids me the right to question the interpretations of the scholars. I have utmost respect for our interpreters, scholars, jurists, and I even wish that our scholars today would use the methodology of our scholars of the past. At least they recognized each other's viewpoints, acknowledged them as POSSIBLY correct, and didn't immediately dismiss them as wrong or un-Islamic. Which "scholars" do that today?

I hope it's clear what I'm saying -- though all of it has been said in this exact same thread in previous posts of mine

Let us dispose of the word mushriq as I did above, for the basis of your argument. (I merely detailed above why, based solely on the Quran as you requested, and as I supplied in the verse showing an association Christians make with God, why various groups have a textual basis to suppose the Christian as mushriqs.) That was your request, that arguments be Quranic based and stay within the mushaf.

So work with me, we are now operating on your suggestion that Ahle Kitaab stand distinct from mushriqeen. We are operating on your turf here. We shall use NO EXGESIS or hadith. We shall only refer to the Quran.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, from this point out, we can no longer refer to mushriqeen to fit your paradigm. We shall accept your premise that both male and female muslims are forbidden from the mushriqeen and that this means IDOLATORS and not ahle kitaab.

1. So let us return to the surah 60 ayaah 10 discussion:

You have misunderstood the context. The verse did not address marriage in the context of kuffar men not allowing their women to go to Mecca or not. It addressed a treaty the Prophet had with the Meccans in regard to renegades from EITHER side. The commentary within the verse regarding halaal and haraam is timeless and without context though and this is clear from the way the sentence runs. It says “the believing women are not lawful for them.” God does not even follow up with a reason or contextualize his statement.

The exact Arabic utilized in the sentence regarding the fugitive women that flee Mecca and join the Ansaar is as follows: English: They (the fugitive believing women) are not lawful for them nor are they (the kuffaar men) lawful for them (the fugitive believing women). Literal translation: They are not lawful for them nor are they lawful for them. Arabic is: La hunna (they are not) HILLULAHUM (halaal for them) wa la hum yaHILOONA (and they are not lawful [halaal being the root word here as well] for them).
The reference is obvious because the preceding sentence noted the muhijireen women and the kuffaar men. The KEY WORD is HILLUL which is derived from the halaal and haram context of forbidden and permissible.

Next, the reference point you make is in regard to whether next part of the ayah: wa la thumsiku biisaamil kawaafiri (literally: and HOLD NOT TO THE TIES of disbelieving women); and the KEY is the remainder of the ayah, which runs as follows: “and ask for the return of that which you have spent on them.”

Two key points here. The marriage itself to the kaaffir is not deemed haraam. The language utilized is not that of the halaal or the haraam as it was for the women. Rather, reading the whole ayah, dowry and all considered, the men are told that of their women flee from them to the disbelievers, under the auspices of the treaties they have, they are to let them go. Moreover, the condition is in place that they ask for the dowry back. So this dissolving of the “tie” is contextualized according to if the women LEAVE them. Allah makes no broad or sweeping statement on the halaal or haraam of the man marrying the general category of kuffaar.

2. Though it is impossible, based on the Arabic for you to build this case, let us assume
that 60:10 is an injunction on both the man and women. Let us even assume that there is an inference to halaal and haraam for the man (though this would be doing exactly what you are against which is reading into the text). However, for the sake of discussion we are going to run with the assumption that 60:10 applies equally and exactly to men and women despite the extremely relevant and pertinent differences in the verbage I discussed above (halaal versus thumsiku biisaamil in reference to a wife gone rogue).

Even then you tighten the logical noose around your own argument. Here is why:


1) You rely on the verse from surah 2 of both male and female being forbidden to marry the mushriqeen (with the exam same verbage and nouns applied to both sexes I might add).
2) If we add in surah 60 verse 10 and through some verbal gymnastics and glossing over the actual Arabic say that this verse forbids both men and women from marrying the kuffar.

Let us pause here. You now have 2 prior ayaahs/examples of the issue of what is laudable and acceptable for marriage and what is not allowed. The precedent has been that when marriage is addressed, both sexes are addressed. In both these prior verses, neither of the sexes is neglected.


This is a continued trend in the Quran. In fact in Surah 2, despite it being a short sentence, women’s divorce rights are addressed briefly:

“And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them.” (2:227)

3. Moreover, you cannot pick and choose what you define as kaafir, otherwise you are breaking your own rules and introducing your personal interpretation into the matter. I have provided this ayah in my prior post as prove that the Quran has EQUATED kaafir and Christian quiet clearly on a 1 to 1 ratio. This has not an IOTA to do with Christians being mushriqs or not being mushriqs.

Surah 5 verse 17: Laqad kafaroo –ul adheena (They disbelief those) qaloo innallaha huwa-al maseeh-ubno Maryama (who say that God is Christ the Son of Mary.” It is there in black and white text. Those are not my words; they equate on a one to one ratio. The Quranic text clearly notes that those that ascribe to Christ being a part of God (the trinity), i.e. Christians, are kafirs.***

So within the Quran itself, we have evidence that the Christians are EQUATED with kafirs, but not mushriqs. You have not provided any evidence for your version of interpretation, that they are exempt from being called kaafirs. You must at this point provide a verse to back your assertion. And similar to your demands, you must do so from the Quran itself

So now the clincher:
Let me resummarize the above here, we are running on the premise and have accepted your interpretation of the aforementioned ayaahs in surah baqra and the 60th surah, that the ayah pertains to directives to BOTH man and woman (despite the wording lacking in the latter to support your cause). So to this point we have ayaahs that A) show both sexes are restricted when it comes to marrying mushriqs and B) both sexes are restricted in regard to marrying kuffar. We have also shown the assertion buttressed by surah 5 verse 17 that you have not been able to rebut, which shows that Allah himself calls the Christians kafiroon.
Let us then introduce the last verse, the verse from surah 5, and the last word on the matter:

“The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers (muaminaatin) and the virtuous (muh’sinaatin) women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. (Surah 5 verse 4)”

First, this verse adds to the weight of evidence that Christians are not classified within the category of BELIEVERS. They then fall into the category of disbelievers, as otherwise, why would Allah fail to attach the adjective to them? In fact note the sentence that reads in the Arabic: The word mua’minaatin (or believing from the root amino) is utilized for the Muslim women. The only adjective utilized for the ahle kitaab is “muhsinaat.” So Allah himself has distinguished belief here, from unbelief lest you fall prey to the unsubstantiated idea that the Ahle Kitaab are believers. You have to address this. This more than substantiates the idea that Allah himself as shown in surah 5 verse 17 has called them KUFFAAR.

**Note I have conducted this whole argument now within the Quran itself and without relying on any exegesis and I have shown definitively that Allah himself classifies believers into 1 category and the ahle kitaab into another. Note I have also proven per surah 5 verse 15 that he has equated them with koofaar DIRECTLY using the WORDS.**

Now to drive the point home.



Above we have shown
1) Allah has restricted the rights of muslims, men or women to marry mushriqs in surah 2. But this is irrelevant as we accept your definition of mushriq for the sake of argument
2) Allah goes on in 60:10, based on your reasoning to restrict men and women from marrying kuffaar (though you are hard pressed to prove this, but we are agreeing to this only to show even if we except your premise you still have a logical condundrum). His commentary on women is irrespective of circumstance or period of time per the Arabic itself and the usage of haraam and halaal.
3) Allah refers to the Christians as Kuffaar in surah 5:15.
4) In all the above, Allah refers to the rights of males and females consistently.
5) Allah delineates the difference between believers and ahle kitaab even further in the last ayah above (surah 5 verse 4) adding to the notion that while they ARE NOT mushriqs, they are kuffar.

So now this ayah completely draws the air out of your argument in regard to 1 through 4 above:

“The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers (muaminaatin) and the virtuous (muh’sinaatin) women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. (Surah 5 verse 4)”

So now taking 1 through 5 into consideration, and accepting all your aforementioned arguments save one, and that is the Christians are not called kuffaar (unacceptable to anyone per the multiple evidence above), the last ayah gives the final ruling on the subject.



It shows that the in time the following occurred:
1) Men and Women were forbidden to marry mushriqs (this still stands for all of us)
2) The next injunction forbade marriage to kuffaar (broader class of people encompassing all nonmuslim) to BOTH MEN and WOMEN
3) Christians are declared Kuffaar but NOT mushriqs in surah 5, so they fell under the injunction in 2.
4) So to this point we have accepted YOUR PREMISE men and women being UNABLE to marry MUSHRIQS and the GENERAL CLASS of KUFFAAR.
5) So then, even by your train of logic, the last ayah (surah 5 verse 4) then extends the right to marry a subsegment of the kuffaar (the ahle kitaab) TO MEN. The fact that it does not address women means that you have to accept the prior injunction FOR FEMALES of surah 60 verse 10 as not having been abrogated or addressed. A prior injunction already EXISTS for FEMALES in 60:10. TO LIFT THE BAN on WOMEN MARRYING KUFFAR surah 5 verse 4 would HAVE to EXTEND THE RIGHT TO WOMEN as it so clearly did to men.

You basically prove my point for me. The sequence of events and ayaahs as you interpret them and within your logical constraints shows women are restricted to not marrying ANY kuffaar (the broad class of unbelievers that includes BOTH mushriqs and ahle kitaab), but this injunction was LIFTED for men per the logical steps 1 through 5 above.

This in fact makes sense in the context and flow of the surah. It is a late order surah that recognizes Allah is completing the religion of Islam for his messenger. Allah proceeds to make the food of the Ahle kitaab halaal and extends their women being halaal to our men.

Quod Erad Demonstradum, all of this is from the Quran itself and I thank Allah for his guidance.

[Roshina]

The fact that it does not address women means that you have to accept the prior injunction FOR FEMALES of surah 60 verse 10 as not having been abrogated or addressed. A prior injunction already EXISTS for FEMALES in 60:10. TO LIFT THE BAN on WOMEN MARRYING KUFFAR surah 5 verse 4 would HAVE to EXTEND THE RIGHT TO WOMEN as it so clearly did to men.

So, you're presenting the exact same case that everyone else does -- that a woman cannot marry a Christian or a Jew because God never clearly allowed her to do so the way He did a man. But this entire thread discussed exactly this; what's the point of the repetition of the case, mara?

And it's exactly that argument that I contest. Does the Quran *literally, strictly, clearly* have to say a Muslim woman can marry a man from the People of the Book in order for the woman to be able to do it? Your answer, of course, is yes, that's exactly what it means; my answer is: No.

I say No because in other verses, there's a clear injunction; why not in this case? It tells us exactly whom we can and can't marry -- but then it tells men that they CAN marry (chaste) People of the Book but never tells women they can't OR can.

And so I ask, Why is the absence of evidence evidence of prohibition?

[Toramana]

All it sounds to me a tribal mentality ... very jealous of female honour and ready to go to any length and devise any law to protect the "precious property" ... but himself allowing every indulgence...

like you know, in Islam there is this concept of cancubanism ... like the sisters, daughter, mothers, etc. of fallen enemies can be taken as Jehad booty and used as sex slaves by "mard-i-momin"...but no such allowance to females...

[BarakzaiAbdali]

its not at all the absence of evidence. Rather I am pointing out the absence of evidence is on your part. There is an ayaat saying clearly women cannot marry the kuffaar. Christians are defined by the Quran as kuffaar in the ayaat I noted. It is you that has to prove that they are not kuffar (but it will be hard to do this based in the surah 5 reference- nay impossible to do this). There is subsequently an ayah that gives men the right to marry a subsegment of the kuffar (the ahle kitaab) but not the mushriqeen (another subsegment of the kuffaar). Therefore, women are already clearly told they are not to marry kuffaar. This is all within the frame work you established. I am merely pointing out you are asking the Quran to repeat itself. It has already provided the ruling in 60:10 on women marrying ahle kitaab as they fall under kuffaar per its own ayaat. So now, you have to provide an ayaah proving that they were given this permission beyond what is already prohibited to them which are all kuffar and thus ahle kitaab and mushriqeen.

Why should the Quran repeat itself for you?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The formula is quiet simple really:
(K) Kuffaar (per the ayaahs I noted above, I wont repeat myself here, you can read the references) = (A) Ahle kitaab (evidenced in surah 5 verse 17) + (B) mushriqeen + X where X = agnostics, athiests, deists, munafiqeen, etc. all who reject faith.

K = A + B + X

60:10 says men and women cannot marry Kuffar and men cannot marry kuffar, per your preferred view of it that is (A + B + X)

Surah 5 verse 4 then says men can marry A or K - (B + X), but does not comment on any EXTENSION of feminine rights

So women remain under 60:10 where their relationship to A has been defined previously

Therefore, women cannot marry A (ahle kitaab) per the existing injunction banning all kuffaar for them.

So in essence you ask it (the Quran) to repeat itself simply because you want it to.