The objective of this paper is to describe cultural improvisations on the theme of temporary marriage, mut'a (sigheh in colloquial Persian) in Iran; I wish to bring to light the relationship between the law of the institution of temporary marriage, and certain common motifs of behavior of the Iranian people. I do not presume that the following is an exhaustive compilation of such improvisations; rather, it consists of those that I have been able to identify. While the terminology used is partly mine and partly indigenous, the descriptions of sigheh variations is entirely indingenous.

Iran's rich repertoire of narrative literature of oral origin, ranging from single-scene situation comedy through fairytale to the lengthy heroic epic, can certainly be appreciated for its intrinsic literary merits and entertainment value. Both compilers and patrons, however, of what are in effect folktale collections, have from ancient times adopted a utilitarian attitude to their material, a classic instance being the political science course that King Dabshalim (or Devasarma) took from Professor Bidpai in the form of animal fables. In one form or another, the practical autocrat and his obliging philosopher have continued to vet Persian literature through the centuries, insisting that myth and folktale be used as parables to leaven works ostensibly of devotional or moral instruction (as of Rumi or Sa'di) or of historical narrative.

The colonization of the Muslim lands and the increasing political and commercial influence of the Christian West during the last 200 years shocked Muslim leaders. In response to the agonizing problems that increasing incursion by the West brought to the Muslim lands, there arose three groups of intellectuals. The traditionalists believed that the situation was transitory and that traditional Islam would eventually triumph. The ultramodernists sought salvation through uncritical and wholesale imitation of the West.

Among the prominent advocates of this last approach one can count Afghani, Abduh, Gokalp, Iqbal, and probably Kasravi, the Iranian social reformist. Kasravi seems to stand out among them in two important respects. First, unlike his predecessors, he formulated his ideas in a systematic way, tracing “problems” to their roots and advocating explicit “remedies.” Second, Kasravi never shifted strategy to suit the occasion as did his predecessors who, by so doing, confused their followers.