A question regarding the concept of Oath of Engagement

unknownuser

Peace,

Ok so I was going through the discussions that have taken place here regarding the concept of Muhsanat and MMA. And there was this interpretation of 424 that all protected/committed women are prohibited except for MMA, where the interpretation stated that MMA refers to those with whom one has the 'Oath of Engagement'. Based on that it further stated that the Muhsanat in 425 refers to those who are already under one's Oath of Engagement. Ok so that pretty much solves the contradiction, however when you further read 425, it says 'If whoever is unable/not able among you to get material/social (The word used 'Tawlun' according to classical Arabic dictionaries it refers to all sorts of 'Means' that can be material to social) means that he couples with a believing Muhsanat, so (He may couple with anyone) from MMA from your believing Fatayat'. The question is, why would one make an oath of engagement when he is not able to get married, and when he can't, why has God allowed him to get married to MMA from Fatayat when he already has an path of engagement with a woman? I mean, isn't that unfair? You get engaged with a woman and due to not being able to get married, yet not being able to control desires, you get married to another woman. Or have I totally misunderstood this interpretation and the concept of Oath of Engagement? Thanks in advance

savage_carrot

Good point FA. This would mean even the 'oath of engagement' (whatever that is), would depend on your means as well just like a nikah (and we have a reference to nikah rather than anything else). You can't even have an oath of engagement if you don't have the means to marry them (whatever means this includes) and secondly...if you had the 'means' before and then don't have the 'means' later after the 'oath of engagement' at any point, you'd have to break it off and find someone else from the fatayat to make an 'oath of engagement' with. This makes no sense.

What means are these anyhow? If wealth it's kind of sucky to say if you don't have the money to marry them then marry someone else but wouldn't you require money for marriage period? If the dowry is a token amount, then why does it have to be wealth? Can't anyone marry anyone regardless of wealth? Poor people do it all the time.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15945.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598241.msg202134#msg202134

The above are a few interesting discussions on the verse. Haven't read them in some time but have talked to Sis Samia recently about her understanding, and am trying to go through it. Maybe it helps unless you've read them before

peace

unknownuser

Thanks savage_carrot, you said it better than I could.

Another point, when God allowed marriage with MMA from believing Fatayat, He is talking about the whole Muslim community. Take a look at the way God has presented this verse

425 And if anyone is unable/not able from you to have material/social means (I further studied the word 'Tawl', it basically means 'Length', and it's meanings vary from 'Being long' to 'Tall' to 'To be spread' to 'Power', thus in context of marriage, it no doubt refers to means or capability, that can vary from social to material) that he marries an Al Muhsanat il Mominat, so from what you rightfully possess/your oaths possess/possesses your oaths/your rights possess/your right hands possess/possess your right hands/possesses your rights (Or whatever the translation is)

Can you see? This shows that it is a permission of God to marry an MMA from the community's Fatayat. And if we take MMA to mean 'Under oath of engagement', then we'll come up with the following point; It is ok to marry a Fatayat that is engaged with someone else

Of course, if 'MMA' in context of Fatayat means something other than 'MMA' in context of Muhsanat, then this point of mine is useless

As for your question, if you take a look at 424, we can see that God uses the phrase 'And permissible are all women beyond these, given that you seek them with your wealth as protected men, not those who fornicate', this shows that the only way to approach a woman for marriage is by one's wealth. Thus I think if you add up these verses you'll figure out that dower is wealth, now how much wealth is it? Well, it varies from era to society to person. However, here I wouldn't limit the 'Means' to wealth. Like I mentioned, 'Tawlan' is a very broad term.

Regarding the poor people, didn't God say in 2433, that

Lit. 'And let them restrain/control (Keep chaste) who do not find marriage'? Now it depends on the reader, if he/she takes it to mean 'Who do not find the means for marriage' or 'Who do not find someone to marry'. If it's the former then the problem is solved, as God later mentions 'God grants them sufficiency out of His bounty'. So keeping that in mind, I take the latter. Thus, poor people should be patient. As what's the point of marrying when you won't be able to support.

Thanks for the links btw

nimnimak_11

'Oath of Engagement'.

Why oath of engagement? Why not a casual oath?

The question is, why would one make an oath of engagement when he is not able to get married, and when he can't, why has God allowed him to get married to MMA from Fatayat when he already has an path of engagement with a woman?

He wouldn't already have a path of engagement with a woman. I think that an oath of engagement would constitute an oath that enters one's heart and to break it to pursue another woman, would IMO result in him being held accountable.
Thus before pursuing serious oath/s with the muhsinat, he would assess whether it is within his tawlan to marry the muhsinat. If not he should not pursue a muhsinat, he should pursue a fatayat. My understanding though is that his pursuit will result in a relationship such that the woman becomes MMA to him. Eventually there is going to have to be some sort of engagement some pre-marriage arrangement before finally getting married.

It does raise the question about what tawlan is and
what difference is there between the fatayat and the muhsinat such that marrying the fatayat is more within the tawlan of someone then it is to marry a muhsinat.

In 424, we are told that the men who intend to marry should do so with the intention of being Muhsin.
425 looks to me like it's saying that the fatayat who are being married should seek to be muhsin.

This makes me think that whilst the fatayat men can marry the muhsinat women, it may be not within their tawlan to to this. You can sort of sense this. The idea of a guy, with no stable job, living with his parents, marrying an independent woman, seems to me like it would be a bit out of his reach/league/means and I would think that an independent woman, is better off marrying an independent man.

But two fatayats marrying together might work provided that God has enriched them of his bounties (as suggested by 2433). They would then seek to be muhsin (independent). That's my current understanding.

savage_carrot

Another point, when God allowed marriage with MMA from believing Fatayat, He is talking about the whole Muslim community. Take a look at the way God has presented this verse

425 And if anyone is unable/not able from you to have material/social means (I further studied the word 'Tawl', it basically means 'Length', and it's meanings vary from 'Being long' to 'Tall' to 'To be spread' to 'Power', thus in context of marriage, it no doubt refers to means or capability, that can vary from social to material) that he marries an Al Muhsanat il Mominat, so from what you rightfully possess/your oaths possess/possesses your oaths/your rights possess/your right hands possess/possess your right hands/possesses your rights (Or whatever the translation is)

Can you see? This shows that it is a permission of God to marry an MMA from the community's Fatayat. And if we take MMA to mean 'Under oath of engagement', then we'll come up with the following point; It is ok to marry a Fatayat that is engaged with someone else

Of course, if 'MMA' in context of Fatayat means something other than 'MMA' in context of Muhsanat, then this point of mine is useless
Agreed means/capability. Good point again, we obviously can't have 'oaths of engagement' in place with MMA fatayat otherwise it wouldn't say 'if you can't marry al muhsanat so from MMA fatayat' = they already are MMA and this further clarifies that we obviously can't. And yes, I'd like to see that difference however

As for your question, if you take a look at 424, we can see that God uses the phrase 'And permissible are all women beyond these, given that you seek them with your wealth as protected men, not those who fornicate', this shows that the only way to approach a woman for marriage is by one's wealth. Thus I think if you add up these verses you'll figure out that dower is wealth, now how much wealth is it? Well, it varies from era to society to person. However, here I wouldn't limit the 'Means' to wealth. Like I mentioned, 'Tawlan' is a very broad term.

Regarding the poor people, didn't God say in 2433, that

Lit. 'And let them restrain/control (Keep chaste) who do not find marriage'? Now it depends on the reader, if he/she takes it to mean 'Who do not find the means for marriage' or 'Who do not find someone to marry'. If it's the former then the problem is solved, as God later mentions 'God grants them sufficiency out of His bounty'. So keeping that in mind, I take the latter. Thus, poor people should be patient. As what's the point of marrying when you won't be able to support.
Of course. I was referring to the conception that somehow al muhsinat il mominat are a 'better' category than the fatayat mma in terms of some sort of class/wealth restriction involved with one and not so with the other which I find elitist and retarded. A response from one of the threads

Does God divide people between higher and lower cast, so that He sets rules for them on these grounds? Does God say that the best to marry is the "higher cast, rich, beautiful"? No. It's always the mu'mins and the muttaqeen. These are YOUR rules, not God's, and God will not change His rules because in your society you have "higher casts" and "untouchables". This in the first place is against God's rules, morals and ethics. No divine rule would be based on them.

The difference if any has to involve a reason for why there's an alternate advised which can't be based on such considerations.

unknownuser

Agreed means/capability. Good point again, we obviously can't have 'oaths of engagement' in place with MMA fatayat otherwise it wouldn't say 'if you can't marry al muhsanat so from MMA fatayat' = they already are MMA and this further clarifies that we obviously can't. And yes, I'd like to see that difference however
Of course. I was referring to the conception that somehow al muhsinat il mominat are a 'better' category than the fatayat mma in terms of some sort of class/wealth restriction involved with one and not so with the other which I find elitist and retarded. A response from one of the threads

The difference if any has to involve a reason for why there's an alternate advised which can't be based on such considerations.

Well after studying 'Tawlan', and seeing that one has to give dowry in both cases, in face, God in case of Fatayat says 'Ujurahunna Bil Maruf', 'Ajar in a fair manner/reputable manner', so I think 'Tawlan' here refers to a social problem. Next point that needs to be considered is that in the end God says, 'This is for those who fear distress/hardship; to be patient is better', thus it shows that God Himself does not approve these marriages. I think that for the sake of avoiding that the people end up committing fornication, God allowed this marriage. That's what I can come up with.

unknownuser

Why oath of engagement? Why not a casual oath?

He wouldn't already have a path of engagement with a woman. I think that an oath of engagement would constitute an oath that enters one's heart and to break it to pursue another woman, would IMO result in him being held accountable.
Thus before pursuing serious oath/s with the muhsinat, he would assess whether it is within his tawlan to marry the muhsinat. If not he should not pursue a muhsinat, he should pursue a fatayat. My understanding though is that his pursuit will result in a relationship such that the woman becomes MMA to him. Eventually there is going to have to be some sort of engagement some pre-marriage arrangement before finally getting married.

It does raise the question about what tawlan is and
what difference is there between the fatayat and the muhsinat such that marrying the fatayat is more within the tawlan of someone then it is to marry a muhsinat.

In 424, we are told that the men who intend to marry should do so with the intention of being Muhsin.
425 looks to me like it's saying that the fatayat who are being married should seek to be muhsin.

This makes me think that whilst the fatayat men can marry the muhsinat women, it may be not within their tawlan to to this. You can sort of sense this. The idea of a guy, with no stable job, living with his parents, marrying an independent woman, seems to me like it would be a bit out of his reach/league/means and I would think that an independent woman, is better off marrying an independent man.

But two fatayats marrying together might work provided that God has enriched them of his bounties (as suggested by 2433). They would then seek to be muhsin (independent). That's my current understanding.

Ok, call it a 'Casual oath' or whatever you want
Ok, your explanation pretty much has reduced my objections. However, there is still one question, the Fatayat are already MMA. So one is approaching an MMAed Fatayat? That doesn't make sense like savage_carrot said.
Where did you come up with the thing that men are Fatayat; first of all, it is supposed to be 'Fityan', that is the plural of 'Fatan' that is the masculine version of the singular version of 'Fatayat'. Second, if you base that since both have been described to be Muhsins, they must be the same. Well I have to say that is wrong. The word God has used is Muhsanatin and Muhsineena, both of them are indefinite nouns, thus they are technically just a characteristic and not a 'Type' of people. Third, no where does it say that the men that are being referred to are Fityan, so I won't agree with that

Peace

nimnimak_11

the Fatayat are already MMA. So one is approaching an MMAed Fatayat? That doesn't make sense like savage_carrot said.

424 Pretty explicitly suggests that the mu'antu are prohibited for marriage unless they are MMA "And the independent from the women, except those maintained by your oaths" following this the verse says "and permitted for you is what is beyond this"

It then goes on to say 425 "And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women"

Because 424 highlights that one can only marry a muhsinat unless they are MMA, this means one cannot approach a muhsinat for marriage unless they are MMA. However 425 is clear that those who can't marry the believing muhsinat, should marry the believing fatayat that are MMA. Thus you approach an MMAed fatayat for marriage, not for MMAing them as they are already of those whom your oaths possess. Where as you cannot approach the muhsinat for marriage unless they are/become MMAed first.

It's almost the same thing. However as pointed out in another thread, whilst the muhsinat are explicitly prohibited for marriage unless they are MMA, the fatayat are not. But IMO the fatayat are implicitly prohibited for marriage unless they are MMA because 424 says permitted for you is what is beyond this and just after this, 425 clarifies what is beyond this by saying if you can't marry the muhsinat, you marry the fatayat that are MMA.

Where did you come up with the thing that men are Fatayat; first of all, it is supposed to be 'Fityan', that is the plural of 'Fatan' that is the masculine version of the singular version of 'Fatayat'.

I should have worded my post better. The root fa ta ya is also used in reference to men. 1230 And women in the city said, "The wife of al-'Azeez is seeking to seduce her fataha; he has impassioned her with love. Indeed, we see her in clear error."

Thus Joseph when he was dependent was labled a fataha. Which is further reason to think of the of those who fall under fa ta ya as being dependent and without sufficient means of self-sustenance/ independence.

Second, if you base that since both have been described to be Muhsins, they must be the same. Well I have to say that is wrong. The word God has used is Muhsanatin and Muhsineena, both of them are indefinite nouns, thus they are technically just a characteristic and not a 'Type' of people.

I'm not sure I understand you here. I did not suggest that both have been described as Muhsins. Rather that those who are marrying are doing so seeking to become independent (as you've corrected me, seeking to be muhsanatin and muhsineena) rather that muhsin or muhsinat.

Third, no where does it say that the men that are being referred to are Fityan, so I won't agree with that

Fair enough. It was more of an assumption. It may well be the case that an independent man seeks marriage to furthter his independence. Thus 424 may not be exclusively addressing the fataha (dependent men)

Peace

unknownuser

424 Pretty explicitly suggests that the mu'antu are prohibited for marriage unless they are MMA "And the independent from the women, except those maintained by your oaths" following this the verse says "and permitted for you is what is beyond this"

It then goes on to say 425 "And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women"

Because 424 highlights that one can only marry a muhsinat unless they are MMA, this means one cannot approach a muhsinat for marriage unless they are MMA. However 425 is clear that those who can't marry the believing muhsinat, should marry the believing fatayat that are MMA. Thus you approach an MMAed fatayat for marriage, not for MMAing them as they are already of those whom your oaths possess. Where as you cannot approach the muhsinat for marriage unless they are/become MMAed first.

It's almost the same thing. However as pointed out in another thread, whilst the muhsinat are explicitly prohibited for marriage unless they are MMA, the fatayat are not. But IMO the fatayat are implicitly prohibited for marriage unless they are MMA because 424 says permitted for you is what is beyond this and just after this, 425 clarifies what is beyond this by saying if you can't marry the muhsinat, you marry the fatayat that are MMA.

Hmm, many things are getting clear. Probably due to the fact that I'm talking to you directly, rather than reading your replies to others. All of what you said makes sense, but if you read closely, the verse actually says

And who is not able/unable among you to have means that he marries a believing Al Muhsanat, so from who are maintained by your oaths from your Fatayat

I think it is quite clear what I'm trying to say

I should have worded my post better. The root fa ta ya is also used in reference to men. 1230 And women in the city said, "The wife of al-'Azeez is seeking to seduce her fataha; he has impassioned her with love. Indeed, we see her in clear error."

Thus Joseph when he was dependent was labled a fataha. Which is further reason to think of the of those who fall under fa ta ya as being dependent and without sufficient means of self-sustenance/ independence.

I know that, in fact, here is a list of other places where this word appears

Ch. 4 Verse 25
Ch. 12 Verses 30, 36, 41 and 62
Ch. 18 Verse 60 and 62
Ch. 21 Verse 60
Ch. 24 Verse 33

And in it's verb form it appears in Ch. 4 Verse 127, Ch. 37 Verse 11 and other places

Go through them to get a better idea of what Fatayat may be

What I meant was that you should have worded your reply better

I'm not sure I understand you here. I did not suggest that both have been described as Muhsins. Rather that those who are marrying are doing so seeking to become independent (as you've corrected me, seeking to be muhsanatin and muhsineena) rather that muhsin or muhsinat.

What I said was an assumption about you, if you didn't understand what I said, then I was probably wrong, never mind that

Peace

nimnimak_11

And who is not able/unable among you to have means that he marries a believing Al Muhsanat, so from who are maintained by your oaths from your Fatayat

Good point. The oaths belong to the community as opposed to the individual. This makes things interesting and complicated. I'l look at it more. If I come across anything interesting, I'l post it here. Thanks for pointing this out. If you come up with anything else in relation to the MMA, please post it.

Good luck
Peace

unknownuser

Good point. The oaths belong to the community as opposed to the individual. This makes things interesting and complicated. I'l look at it more. If I come across anything interesting, I'l post it here. Thanks for pointing this out. If you come up with anything else in relation to the MMA, please post it.

Good luck
Peace

I will
Good luck to you too
Peace

Do post as soon as you come across something that'll help us regarding this issue

nimnimak_11

Ok I don't know if this is right. Just some uncertainties I have with regards to the usage of min in 425
And who is not able/unable among you to have means that he marries a believing Al Muhsanat, so from who are maintained by your oaths from your Fatayat

I looked at the free-minds translation and got this 423 begins with Forbidden for you are....
425 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women.

If the minkum here is referring to those at 423 (and I think it does because it is a continuation from 423) then oaths don't belong to the community. It belongs to those who are addressed at 423 which is anyone seeking to follow the instructions of the Quran IMO.

What do you think?

Peace

unknownuser

Ok I don't know if this is right. Just some uncertainties I have with regards to the usage of min in 425

I looked at the free-minds translation and got this 423 begins with Forbidden for you are....
425 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women.

If the minkum here is referring to those at 423 (and I think it does because it is a continuation from 423) then oaths don't belong to the community. It belongs to those who are addressed at 423 which is anyone seeking to follow the instructions of the Quran IMO.

What do you think?

Peace

First lets admit the KUM itself is for a group of individuals, where it is directed at the individuals. In other words, it is not directed to a group of individuals, but to the individuals in a group. The reason why I say that is because of 423

Prohibited upon KUM are mothers KUM

Prohibited upon you your mothers

If we take the other interpretation, then it would suggest that all mothers in general are prohibited which wouldn't really be right.

Keeping that in mind, no doubt KUM in 425 also refers to each individual of the Muslim community. Thus, here is a revised translation of it

(And) (Who/He who) (Not) (Is able) (From you ) to have (A length/power/means/height) that (He marries) (Al Muhsanat il Mominat) (So) he may marry anyone (From who your right hands/oaths possess) (From) (Your Fatayat)
In round brackets Literal translation of the Arabic words themselves by the help of Abdul Mannan Omar's dicitonary
Between round brackets Extra English additions so the sentence makes sense
Between square brackets My explanations

Technically, we're back to the same problem as you can see. The one's in the Muslim community had Fatayats, part of the Fatayat's were MMAed by the one's in the Muslim community, if one from the one's in the Muslim community could not marry Al Muhsanat il Mominat, then he was allowed to marry the Fatayat of the one's of the Muslim community who were MMAed by the one's of the Muslim community. The reason why I say that it refers to a group, is because of the KUM. The word KUM itself is a plural thing. If you want, you may not use the word 'Community', but you can't deny that the ones being addressed are at least three or more.

Peace

Mazhar

Ok I don't know if this is right. Just some uncertainties I have with regards to the usage of min in 425

I looked at the free-minds translation and got this 423 begins with Forbidden for you are....
425 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women.

If the minkum here is referring to those at 423 (and I think it does because it is a continuation from 423) then oaths don't belong to the community. It belongs to those who are addressed at 423 which is anyone seeking to follow the instructions of the Quran IMO.

What do you think?

Peace

Even reading about Prepositional Phrases in English Grammar would help understand how prepositional phrases of Arabic are understood.

Mazhar

Thus, here is a revised translation of it

(And) (Who/He who) (Not) (Is able) (From you ) to have (A length/power/means/height) that (He marries) (Al Muhsanat il Mominat) (So) he may marry anyone (From who your right hands/oaths possess) (From) (Your Fatayat)
In round brackets Literal translation of the Arabic words themselves by the help of Abdul Mannan Omar's dicitonary

For clarification only.

Omar describes meanings in the broader sense, he does not suggest the role of a word in a text. Dictionaries merely state meanings of words.

? ?? ??

Please now attempt taking care what the verb means alongwith added connotations for reason of additional consonants, its mood effected by the Particle changing its meanings about time, its object .

unknownuser

For clarification only.

Omar describes meanings in the broader sense, he does not suggest the role of a word in a text. Dictionaries merely state meanings of words.

? ?? ??

Please now attempt taking care what the verb means alongwith added connotations for reason of additional consonants, its mood effected by the Particle changing its meanings about time, its object .

Thanks Mazhar

I don't really know much about Arabic, I just know the basic concepts. Nor can I understand Arabic, although I can read it. So if its ok with it, can you correct the mistake in my attempt to translate it? Like you did with 726 in that thread 'question about dress code'?

Oh, and thank you for haqeeqat.org.pk, I love it, is that your own website?

Mazhar

Thanks Mazhar

I don't really know much about Arabic, I just know the basic concepts. Nor can I understand Arabic, although I can read it. So if its ok with it, can you correct the mistake in my attempt to translate it? Like you did with 726 in that thread 'question about dress code'?

Oh, and thank you for haqeeqat.org.pk, I love it, is that your own website?

The level of interest which reflects from your efforts, soon will you be knowing grammar of Arabic. It is much easier than English grammar, if one begins both simultaneously.

Yes, website is mine, continuously under construction. I am doing all work manually.

425 will be explained on Ma Malakat Aimanukum, InshaAllah.

unknownuser

The level of interest which reflects from your efforts, soon will you be knowing grammar of Arabic. It is much easier than English grammar, if one begins both simultaneously.

Thanks for the encouragement, that's all I need.

Yes, website is mine, continuously under construction. I am doing all work manually.

Cool, I really hope you complete it quickly. It will be of great benefit to all, especially Pakistanis.

425 will be explained on Ma Malakat Aimanukum, InshaAllah.

Ok

nimnimak_11

If we take the other interpretation, then it would suggest that all mothers in general are prohibited which wouldn't really be right.

I'm not sure. My view is that the scripture is addressing humanity. So this renders 423-25 like this prohibited to you (individuals within humanity (plural, more than one) are your mothers (thus anyone from humanity who has a mother, is not allowed to marry their mother/as opposed to all who are mothers to someone are completely prohibited for marriage. Even to those whom they are not mothers to)
A mother is only a mother in relation to her son. She is not a mother to all of humanity. Does this solve this issue?

then continuing from 423 to 425 - and whoever of you (individuals within humanity (again more than one) cannot marry the muhsinat, then from those whom your oaths possess of the fatayat.

I just think that if it was going to convey that the oaths belong to the communities rather than the individuals in the community, it would have done it like this
whoever of them can't marry the muhsinat, then from those whom your oaths possess of the fatayat. OR
Whoever of you can't marry the muhsinat, then from those whom their oaths possess of the fatayat.

What do you think?

unknownuser

I'm not sure. My view is that the scripture is addressing humanity. So this renders 423-25 like this prohibited to you (individuals within humanity (plural, more than one) are your mothers (thus anyone from humanity who has a mother, is not allowed to marry their mother/as opposed to all who are mothers to someone are completely prohibited for marriage. Even to those whom they are not mothers to)
A mother is only a mother in relation to her son. She is not a mother to all of humanity. Does this solve this issue?

then continuing from 423 to 425 - and whoever of you (individuals within humanity (again more than one) cannot marry the muhsinat, then from those whom your oaths possess of the fatayat.

I just think that if it was going to convey that the oaths belong to the communities rather than the individuals in the community, it would have done it like this
whoever of them can't marry the muhsinat, then from those whom your oaths possess of the fatayat. OR
Whoever of you can't marry the muhsinat, then from those whom their oaths possess of the fatayat.

What do you think?

Ok, you may render it as humanity. The point is, that it refers to a group of at least 3 people. To make things simple, let's assume that four people are being addressed; Jack, Steve, John, and Mike (Cool names huh?).

If any one from you four cannot marry an Al Muhsanat il Mominat, then he may marry anyone of those who your oaths possess from your believing Fatayat

See? Its the same thing. If any one from Jack Steve John and Mike cannot marry an Al Muhsanat il Mominat, lets supposed its Jack, then Jack may marry any of their Fatayat who they have an oath with, that is, if they have a Fatayat. Where 'Their' refers to Jack Steve Mike and John.

As for you assumptions, well I think they aren't correct, as they show that the one who can't marry is not one of those who have a Fatayat, unlike the Quran, which shows that the one who can't marry is one of those who have an oath with their Fatayat.

The mother issue is just like the Fatayat issue. Those who belong to the group of people being addressed who have an oath with the Fatayat from the group of people being addressed can have this verse applied to them. Sorry for being confusing.