A comparative study of abortion by medical staff in the laws of Afghanistan and Iran

Today, abortion is one of the most debated social and legal issues in all human societies. Although many Islamic jurists consider abortion forbidden (haram) based on their interpretation of the Quranic verses, a secondary ruling (hukm thanawi) can be established by redefining the issue under the new concept of "therapeutic abortion." In certain exceptional cases, the legal systems of Afghanistan and Iran have permitted abortion—specifically when the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life and there is no alternative to abortion to save her. In such cases, there is no distinction between before or after the ensoulment (Rūḥ) of the fetus, as the difference between these two stages is merely the potentiality versus the actuality of human life. If we argue that two Islamic rulings—the obligation to save the mother’s life and the prohibition of abortion—are in conflict, making it impossible to uphold one without violating the other, this contradiction can be resolved by applying the jurisprudential principle of "prioritizing the more important over the less important" (al-aḥamm fa al-muhimm). Accordingly, the ruling with greater importance takes precedence. This comparative study examines abortion performed by medical professionals using a descriptive-analytical method and library resources, focusing on Islamic jurisprudence in the legal frameworks of Afghanistan and Iran. It also explores the legislative responses to this issue. If abortion is performed by medical personnel without the justification of "saving the mother’s life," both Afghan and Iranian lawmakers consider it a criminal offense punishable by law. Additionally, the study analyzes the legal penalties imposed in Afghanistan and Iran for unauthorized abortions performed outside medical supervision.