Stop behaving like an idiot, DH. You know perfectly well that I'm male. You've known it for ages, and pretending I'm female isn't going to score you any points.
An honest mistake. No insult intended
However, since most people who know a bit about sharia know that a Muslim man marrying a Christian or Jewish woman is generally allowed I'm surprised that you want to make such a fuss about it.
Your statement was that it is allowed "under Islamic law", and I merely asked to which schools you were referring. In the meantime I referred the readers to the Koran's statements on various related matters.
Regarding idolators, AFAIK People of the Book are not classified the same as idolators (as indicated by the marriage laws). Whether or not you regard this as logically conistent doesn't matter. It's a religion. It's not supposed to be logically consistent.
Au contraire. Devout Muslims' ability to maintain their faith is utterly dependent on their ability to explain away the Koran's numerous internal contradictions (that is why they came up with the doctrine of abrogation). Furthermore, my identification of the glaring contradiction between the Koran's prohibition on marrying mushriks and its permitting the marrying of female "Peoples of the Book" who (regardless of your ongoing insistence to the contrary) fall into the category of "Mushrik" due to their beliefs regarding Jesus etc had already been noted by Muslim theologians:
[al-Nisa’ 4:25] SOURCE
The Christians and Jews are kuffaar and mushrikeen, according to the Qur’aan, but they are excluded from the prohibition on marrying their women, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And do not marry Al-Mushrikaat (idolatresses) till they believe (worship Allaah Alone). And indeed a slave woman who believes is better than a (free) Mushrikah (idolatress), even though she pleases you”
This is the clearest way of reconciling between the two verses.
Allaah has described them as being mushrikeen as He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allaah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allaah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Tawraat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] to worship none but One Ilaah (God — Allaah) Laa ilaaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)”
So they are kuffaar and mushrikeen, but Allaah has permitted us to eat their meat and to marry their women if they are chaste. This is an exemption from the general meaning of the verse in Soorat al-Baqarah.
But it should be noted that it is better and safer not to marry women of the people of the Book, especially nowadays. Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “… as this is the case, it is better not to marry a woman of the people of the Book, because ‘Umar said to those who married women of the people of the Book: ‘Divorce them,’ so they divorced them, except Hudhayfah. ‘Umar said to him: ‘Divorce her.’ (Hudhayfah) said: ‘Do you bear witness that she is haraam?’ He said: ‘She is a live coal, divorce her.’ He said: ‘Do you bear witness that she is haraam?’ He said: ‘She is a live coal.’ He said: ‘I know that she is a live coal, but she is permissible for me.’ A while later, he divorced her and it was said to him: ‘Why did you not divorce her when ‘Umar commanded you to?’ He said: ‘I did not want the people to think that I had done something wrong (by marrying her).’ Perhaps he was fond of her or perhaps they had a child together so he was fond of her.”
So there is an answer to my query:The question then is how does the Muslim explain away this glaring contradiction in order to maintain their belief in the divine origin of the Koran?
Not a very concvincing explanation. But an explanation nonetheless.