The reference from Quran in your post states, "IDOLATERS" should not be accepted in marriage by muslim women. It does not say NON-MUSLIMS. Are you the one who was suggesting that a muslim women marrying NON-MUSLIMS is same as comitting ZINA? And you said that was said by "ALL SCHOOL OF THOUGHTS"?? How irresposible is that on your part to misinform people?
Even Christian and Jew men not considered MUSLIMS but still muslim women are ALLOWED to marry them and make families. So putting IDOLATERS, Christians and Jews in the same catagory is highly MORONIC to be polite.
I know one case where a muslim man is married to a christian lady. They have two girls who are following christian faith because naturally kids are spiritually and emotionally closer to their mothers. Another case where a muslim lady married a christian man, their son is a muslim. That reaffirms the fact that kids are spiritually and emotionally closer to their mothers. Unless the father has a very dominating or strong personality and wants his kids to follow what he wants them to, the chance is the kids are going to follow their mother's religion.
So that even proves those mullahs wrong who claim that muslim women (being weaker sex) cannot have their children follow her faith if married to a non-muslim. Based on this, they declare muslim womens' marriage with non-muslims as a SIN or ZINA. These thoughts are of none other than our truly blessed with brains mullahs.
"All jurists agreed that a Muslim man or woman may not marry a mushrik [one who associates partners with God--there is a complex and multi-layered discourse on who is to be considered a mushrik, but we will leave this for a separate discussion]. However, because of al-Ma'ida verse 5, there is an exception in the case of a Muslim man marrying a kitabiyya. There is no express prohibition in the Qur'an or elsewhere about a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi. However, the jurists argued that since express permission was given to men, by implication women must be prohibited from doing the same. The argument goes: If men needed to be given express permission to marry a kitabiyya, women needed to be given express permission as well, but since they were not given any such permission then they must be barred from marrying a kitabi. Every place where Allah mentions rules or reward He mentions women and men (Moumin and mouminate) except here. In this case only men.
The justification for this rule was two-fold: 1) Technically, children are given the religion of their father, and so legally speaking, the offspring of a union between a Muslim male and a kitabiyya would still be Muslim; 2)It was argued that Muslim men are Islamically prohibited from forcing their wives to become Muslim. Religious coercion is prohibited in Islam. However, in Christianity and Judaism a similar prohibition against coercion does not exist. According to their own religious law, Muslim jurists argued, Christian men may force their Muslim wives to convert to their (the husbands') religion. Put differently, it was argued, Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism as valid religions, but Judaism and Christianity do not recognize the validity of Islam as a religion. Since it was assumed that the man is the stronger party in a marriage, it was argued that Christian and Jewish men will be able to compel their Muslim wives to abandon Islam. (If a Muslim man would do the same, he would be violating Islamic law and committing a grave sin).
Importantly, the Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi'i jurists held that it is reprehensible (makruh) for Muslim men to marry a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries. They argued that in non-Muslim countries, mothers will be able to influence the children the most. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the children will not grow up to be good Muslims unless both parents are Muslim. Some jurists even went as far as saying that Muslim men are prohibited from marrying a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries. so, in short it is not all legal for Muslim men either."