this condition is not applicable any more. if we are talking about 1400 years ago then unavailability of getting muslim women do make sense, but not anymore.
whereas, marrying someone "Ahl-e-Kitab" also only applies if they really following the real real Bible or torah, and the amend-ended ones which we see today.
so ppl marrying and bringing in these points into consideration and calling their marriages halal is really like living in caves and calling it modern architecture.
But for many other issues we tend to argue that the Quran is for all time, no?
Was the Bible in its orignial form at the time of the revelation of the Quran?
Christianity was already quite distorted when Islam was revealed/reinforced.. the 'Trinity' concept is mentioned in the Quran. But Allah still called the Christians Ahl-e-Kitab. What makes us say that further distortion, in the past 1400 yrs, changes the definition of Ahl-e-Kitab?
Muslim men can marry 'people of the book' and only under specific conditions (Muslim woman unavailable in the area) and must raise their children as Muslims. Muslim women cannot marry not Muslims, period.
That being said, why do Muslim Pakistanis who marry nonMuslims go try to put up the charade of an Islamic ceremony? I mean if you don't care enough about your religion to follow it's teachings then go ahead and marry in Church, Townhall, or anywhere you like.
Also, I know that many Muslim men try to stretch out the limits of Islam by stating that they are allowed to marry a non-Muslim, but they choose to ignore that the woman must be chaste and honorable..which is a tall order in itself.
In the end, people are going to do what they want, but there is NO reason to bend the rules of Islam in order to justify your own actions.
Oh, I just learnt something new here today. No non-Muslim woman is chaste and honourable. So all of us non-Muslims now know that our daughters are sluts. And you know this how?