Writing for the Jadaliyya blog, Lara Deeb offers some interesting thoughts on mut'a marriage among the Shia community in Lebanon.

In Muslim societies there's a general principle that sexual relations should take place within some kind of legal framework that legitimises them. But conventional marriage is not the only possibility here. Islam, as traditionally practised, includes a number of other options: misyar "visitor" marriages (popular in Saudi Arabia), 'urfi "customary" marriages (popular in Egypt), and of course mut'a "pleasure" marriages among the Shia.

These alternative ways of legitimising sex, it has to be said, are not approved of by all Muslims. Many frown upon them (as do many westerners). But in a situation where relations between the sexes are strictly circumscribed and transgressions can be heavily punished – by law and by society – alternative forms of "marriage" can be very appealing. As Deeb puts it, they provide young people with "ways to live moral lives while also dating" or to "get to know a potential spouse without violating their religious values".

Mut'a is a temporary fixed-term marriage ranging from years to days or even minutes, and when the time is up the marriage automatically comes to an end – without a need for divorce. Sometimes, though by no means always, it amounts to a legalised form of prostitution.

There's also little doubt that these alternative forms of marriage can be exploitative (especially for women) – and the informality of the contracts may be a factor. But there's no reason why they have to be exploitative: a lot depends on the attitudes of the participants.

Deeb notes that much of the English-language writing about mut'a is very negative and linked to broader fears about Shia influence (examples here and here) along with more generalised Islamophobia: "Sex appeal – How a branch of Islam wants to convert the West". 

"In the US context," Deeb writes, "these discourses are also infused with a long history of fascination with the exotic sexuality and assumed submissiveness of Arab women".

The usual assumption is that temporary marriage, along with 'urfi and miswar, is necessarily bad – which it is not. In Lebanon, Deeb sees its apparently increasing popularity as "an excellent example of youth-driven social change and the conflict between religious tenets and social norms". If young people are adopting an old and somewhat stigmatised practice and making use of it in new and creative ways, that is surely something to be explored in all its aspects, both positive and negative.

"There are also other reasons for writing on temporary marriage," Deeb says, "including the importance of examining gender inequalities, and the health and social consequences for women in particular, especially but not exclusively in situations of war or poverty." She continues:

But again the catch is to figure out how to do this without providing fodder for an increasingly absurd and vociferous Islamophobic political machine. The world of rhetorical authority on gender and Islam is populated ever more loudly by Ayaan Hirsi Alis and Irshad Manjis. And while ideas about women’s oppression at the hands of Muslim men, religion or culture have long been used to light western societies by shadowing Muslim ones, this kind of civilisational dichotomy has been put in service of new wars and new political-economic projects in the region during this century.