الهام صفایی زاده

Thpresent study study analyzes and categorizes the narrations concerning Mutʻah (temporary marriage). The central focus is to demonstrate how the rulings on Mutʻah —whether permissibility, recommendation, command, or prohibition—are influenced by personal, social, and political circumstances as reflected in the language of the narrations. Accordingly, this research employs a library-based method for data collection and an analytical-inferential approach to examine the content of both Shi’a and Sunni narrations. A comprehensive view of these narrations reveals that the ruling on Mutʻah is not absolute; rather, it is shaped by varying conditions and necessities. On an individual level, Mutʻah is permitted when there is a personal need. The narrations that restrict this practice to cases of necessity imply that the limitation is lifted whenever a person faces a particular need, thereby granting them permission to enter into a temporary marriage.On a social level, Mutʻah may serve as a tool to safeguard society—especially in times of crisis, such as war, scarcity of resources, or similar hardships. Thus, narrations that strongly encourage the practice are not merely addressing individual conduct but speak to broader societal imperatives. In these contexts, communal needs take precedence over individual considerations. This may even lead to a situation where social necessity creates an individual necessity, despite the individual not inherently requiring the practice; it is the collective circumstance that generates this need. On a political level, Mutʻah has also been viewed as a means to revive an Islamic tradition and to oppose oppressive governments. In this context, the command to engage in Mutʻah is, in fact, an effort to promote and normalize the practice in society in response to its prohibition by ruling authorities.