Compensation Versus Diyat in Accident Cases in Malaysia: Towards A Harmonised Framework for Victims' Rights Under Civil and Islamic Law

Road traffic accidents remain a leading cause of mortality, permanent disability, and economic loss in Malaysia, imposing substantial burdens on victims and their dependants. While Malaysia's civil compensation framework—governed primarily by the Civil Law Act 1956, the Road Transport Act 1987, and compulsory motor insurance—provides financial redress, it often suffers from procedural complexity, prolonged litigation, and inconsistent awards due to heavy reliance on judicial discretion and actuarial estimations. In contrast, Islamic law offers a structured compensation regime through diyat (blood money), arsh (prescribed compensation for specified injuries), and hukumat al-'adl (judicially assessed compensation for non-specified injuries), grounded in legal certainty, proportionality, and maqasid al-Shariah. Despite Malaysia's dual legal system, scholarly exploration into harmonising these civil and Islamic compensation principles remains limited. This article addresses that gap through a comparative doctrinal analysis of the conceptual foundations, objectives, and assessment methodologies underpinning Malaysian civil law and Islamic jurisprudence. Drawing upon statutory provisions, judicial decisions, classical juristic authorities, and contemporary legal scholarship, the study demonstrates that both traditions share common normative objectives: restoring justice, protecting victims' rights, and ensuring equitable compensation. Building upon these shared foundations, the article proposes a harmonised compensation framework consistent with Malaysia's constitutional architecture that selectively incorporates diyat-based principles. This model aims to improve consistency, procedural efficiency, and victim-centred protection, contributing to the broader discourse on legal pluralism and strengthening access to justice within Malaysia's legal landscape.

Compensation; Diyat; Road Traffic Accidents; Restorative Justice; Maqasid al-Shariah

1. Abdullah, A., & Ismail, S. Z. (2021). Diyat as an alternative compensation mechanism for road accident victims in Malaysia. Journal of Shariah Law Research, 6(2), 157–178. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abū Dāwūd, S. (2008). Sunan Abī Dāwūd. Dār al-Risālah. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Al-Bukhārī, M. I. (2002). Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Dār al-Salām. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Al-Ghazālī, A. H. (1993). Al-Mustaṣfā min ʿilm al-uṣūl (Vol. 1). Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Al-Kāsānī. (2003). Badā'iʿ al-ṣanā'iʿ fī tartīb al-sharā'iʿ. Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Al-Sarakhsī. (1993). Al-Mabsūṭ. Dār al-Maʿrifah. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Al-Shāṭibī, I. (1997). Al-Muwāfaqāt fī uṣūl al-sharīʿah (Vols. 1–4). Dār Ibn ʿAffān. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Auda, J. (2008). Maqasid al-Shariah as philosophy of Islamic law: A systems approach. International Institute of Islamic Thought. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cane, P. (2021). Atiyah's accidents, compensation and the law (9th ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 67) (Malaysia). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Dato' Harun bin Idris v. Public Prosecutor [1977] 2 MLJ 155. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Federal Constitution (Malaysia). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Financial Services Act 2013 (Act 758) (Malaysia). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Foo Fio Na v. Dr. Soo Fook Mun [2007] 1 MLJ 593. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Goodin, R. E. (1985). Protecting the vulnerable. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Haji Abdul Rahman v. Government of Malaysia [1966] 2 MLJ 174. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hashim Kamali, M. (2008). Shari'ah law: An introduction. Oneworld Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ibn ʿĀshūr, M. T. (2006). Treatise on Maqasid al-Shariah (M. El-Mesawi, Trans.). International Institute of Islamic Thought. (Original work published 1946) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ibn Qudāmah. (1997). Al-Mughnī. Dār ʿĀlam al-Kutub. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 (Act 759) (Malaysia). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Ismail, S. Z., & Samudin, S. A. (2018). Harmonisation of compensation and diyat in road accident cases in Malaysia. Journal of Shariah Law Research, 3(2), 215–236. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Markesinis, B. S., Deakin, S., Johnston, A., & Angus, C. (2022). Markesinis and Deakin's tort law (9th ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. McGregor, H. (2021). McGregor on damages (21st ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Muslim, I. H. (2007). Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Dār al-Salām. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ng Chun Pui v. Lee Chuen Tat [1988] RTR 298 (PC). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Pacific Tin Consolidated Corporation v. Hoon Wee Thim [1967] 2 MLJ 35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Rahman, N. A., & Ahmad, M. Y. (2022). Restorative justice in Islamic criminal law: An appraisal of diyat. IIUM Law Journal, 30(1), 43–68. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev. ed.). Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Road Transport Act 1987 (Act 333) (Malaysia). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Wahbah al-Zuḥaylī. (2003). Al-fiqh al-Islāmī wa adillatuhu (Vols. 1–10). Dār al-Fikr. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. World Health Organization. (2023). Global status report on road safety 2023. World Health Organization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Yusoff, M. A., & Rahman, F. A. (2020). Personal injury compensation under Malaysian tort law: Challenges and reforms. Malayan Law Journal Articles, 5, cxxi–cxl. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Protecting the Cyberspace: Life World of Online Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children (OSAEC) Investigator