A Jurisprudential and Legal Analysis of Suspension and Execution in the Marriage Contract with Emphasis on the Perspectives of Imami Jurists

According to the prevailing view among jurists, one of the conditions for the validity of transactions, including contracts and unilateral acts, is execution (absence of suspension). This study aims to examine the condition of execution and the impact of suspension on the marriage contract through an analytical-comparative approach to the jurisprudential opinions and related evidence. Employing a descriptive-analytical method, various forms of suspension are outlined, and the jurists’ perspectives are categorized into three main groups: absolute invalidity of suspension, permissibility of suspension in certain cases, and differentiation between compensatory and permissive contracts. The arguments of those advocating for the condition of execution—namely consensus, narrations, the principle of invalidity, customary disapproval, and rational reasoning—are critically evaluated and shown to be inconclusive. The findings indicate that there is no definitive evidence (jurisprudential or legal) to support the necessity of execution in the marriage contract, and suspension does not necessarily lead to the contract’s invalidity. This study suggests that, given the distinction between condition and suspension and the lack of conclusive evidence, suspension in transactions, including unilateral acts and contracts such as marriage, can be accepted, provided the certainty and intent of creation are preserved.