Abstract SummaryIn Imāmī jurisprudence, a central question regarding the contractual formula (ṣīghat al-ʿaqd) is whether "Arabicness" (ʿarabiyyah) and the "use of the past tense" (māḍawiyyah) constitute independent Sharīʿa-based conditions (shart sharʿī) for legal validity, or whether validity depends primarily on the customary signification (dalālah ʿurfiyyah) of constitutive intent (inshāʾ).Proponents of formal linguistic requirements rely on the practice of the Infallibles (fiʿl al-maʿṣūm), juristic consensus (ijmāʿ), the semantic explicitness (aẓhariyyah) of past-tense forms, and legal principles of caution. Conversely, opponents—particularly among later jurists—invoke the unrestricted scope of transactional proofs (iṭlāqāt), the presumption of non-requirement, rational social practice (sīrat al-ʿuqalāʾ), and customary intent.Utilizing a descriptive-analytical methodology, this study examines and evaluates the jurisprudential arguments for both positions. The findings demonstrate that neither Arabicness nor the past tense possess independent Sharīʿa-based conditionality (shartiyyah). Rather, the fundamental criterion for contractual validity is the realization of constitutive intention and the customary capacity of an expression to signify transactional intent. Although past-tense formulations offer superior semantic explicitness in creating legal obligations, this clarity does not, in the absence of explicit, independent evidence, establish a mandatory Sharīʿa requirement.