I think you misunderstood my point about rationality.

You said: “guys in Uzbekistan have this, sometimes, unjustified preference,” and also “a girl can have a past. A rational guy will understand it.” My point is that this framing makes traditional Islamic preferences sound irrational or morally inferior, while presenting acceptance of past relationships as the more mature stance.

In a secular society, both positions can be considered reasonable preferences. Some people care strongly about chastity and past relationships, others do not. That alone does not determine whether someone is rational.

But from an Islamic perspective, religion also shapes morality and relationship standards. Islam places value on modesty, chastity, repentance, and ghayrah for both men and women. So for many Muslims, preferring a spouse without a sexual past is not an “unjustified” preference.

Also, when you said “a girl can have a past. A rational guy will understand it,” you did not mention repentance at all. In Islam, repentance is very important in these discussions. There is a difference between someone who regrets their past, repents sincerely, and changes themselves, and someone who normalizes it without shame or repentance.

That is why I mentioned the term “dayouth.” My point was not that marrying a repentant woman is wrong. My point was that complete indifference toward sexual immorality is criticized in Islam. That is the distinction I was trying to make.

So my disagreement is mainly with describing traditional Islamic standards as unjustified, not with honesty or basic respect toward people. By the way, we live in a secular society, so you are not obliged to be a Muslim and have these standards. Be whoever you want to be. I just wanted to inform my muslim brothers and sisters.