A Comparative Examination of Bodily Injury Compensation in Iranian and Iraqi Law with Emphasis on the Degree of Conformity with the Rules of Imami (Ja‘fari) Jurisprudence

Abstract

The present study aims to conduct a comparative examination of bodily injury compensation within the legal systems of Iran and Iraq and to assess the degree to which each conforms to the rules of Imami (Ja‘fari) jurisprudence. Bodily compensation—particularly in the form of diyah (blood money) and arsh—constitutes one of the most significant mechanisms for damage reparation in Imami jurisprudence and in positive law. The research adopts a descriptive–analytical method with a comparative approach, and the data have been derived from jurisprudential texts, national legislation, and legal sources. The findings indicate that the Iranian legal system, through the direct incorporation of Imami jurisprudence into codified laws such as the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 and the Compulsory Insurance for Bodily Injury Damages Act of 2016, has achieved a higher degree of coherence between its theoretical foundations and its executive structure. By contrast, despite sharing common jurisprudential roots, the Iraqi legal system demonstrates less legislative coherence and relies more heavily on custom and judicial discretion. From a substantive perspective, Iran—by recognizing supplementary damages beyond diyah in certain cases—has taken an effective step toward the realization of compensatory justice, whereas in Iraq, compensation generally remains limited to fixed and traditional diyah. The findings underscore the necessity of refining and systematizing bodily injury compensation regulations in Iraq, taking into account the principles of Imami jurisprudence and Iran’s legislative experience.