Comparative Analysis of the Jurisprudential Effects of Gender Reassignment in Imami and Hanafi Jurisprudence and Its Reflection in Iranian Law

Abstract

Gender reassignment, as one of the emerging issues in jurisprudence and law, has generated extensive challenges in the domains of acts of worship, personal status, and transactions. The present study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the effects of gender reassignment in Imami jurisprudence and Hanafi jurisprudence and to examine its reflection within the Iranian legal system. The research method is documentary and comparative analysis, and the sources include fatwas and jurisprudential texts of Imami and Hanafi schools, Iranian civil law and civil registration regulations, judicial decisions, and contemporary legal studies. The findings indicate that Imami jurisprudence, with an emphasis on expediency and the alignment of psychological and gender identity, accepts the permissibility of gender reassignment under specific conditions, whereas Hanafi jurisprudence, adopting a more conservative approach, permits intervention only in cases of intersex individuals. The comparative examination shows that Imami jurisprudence demonstrates greater flexibility in matters of acts of worship, marriage, and inheritance, and this flexibility is reflected in Iranian law, particularly through judicial practice and the possibility of amending gender markers in identity documents. Nevertheless, legal gaps persist in the areas of personal status and civil liability. The present study recommends the enactment of comprehensive, clear, and comparative legislation grounded in jurisprudential considerations, and suggests that future research address the social, economic, and psychological consequences of gender reassignment, as well as comparative analyses with other legal systems.