Although the vast majority of Muslim jurists accept the principle of taghlīẓ al-diyyah (increased blood money) and base this view on various sources — including the Qur’an, Sunnah (tradition), consensus (ijmāʿ), and the reports of the Companions — they differ in their opinions regarding the causes, effects, and manner of this increase. They disagree on how the increase should take place: whether it involves adding one-third to the standard amount of blood money, or whether it should relate to the characteristics or age of the camels, the timing of payment, or the person responsible for paying it. Furthermore, jurists have mentioned several circumstances that lead to taghlīẓ al-diyyah, such as committing a killing during the sacred months (al-ashhur al-ḥurum), within the sacred precinct of Mecca (ḥaram Makkī), while in the state of consecration (iḥrām), or killing a relative. This study, employing a library-based and descriptive–comparative methodology, examines the views of Shi‘i (Imami) and Hanbali jurists on the causes of increased blood money. The Imami jurists agree with the Hanbalis on adding one-third to the prescribed amount of diyyah in cases of taghlīẓ, but they differ in the specific situations where this applies. For instance, according to the Imami school, taghlīẓ al-diyyah is obligatory in cases of killing during the sacred months or within the sacred precinct of Mecca, but not when the killing occurs during the state of iḥrām or when the victim is a pilgrim (muḥrim). In contrast, the Hanbali jurists consider the increase obligatory in all these cases.From the Imami perspective, there are also differences with the Hanbalis regarding which types of homicide are subject to taghlīẓ al-diyyah. For example, in cases of intentional (ʿamd) or quasi-intentional (shibh al-ʿamd) killing that occur during the sacred months or within Mecca’s sanctuary, the Imami jurists stipulate a one-third increase in the amount. However, Hanbali jurists view the intensification as relating to the age and quality of the camels used for diyyah, rather than its numerical amount. Finally, regarding accidental homicide (qatl al-khaṭaʾ), the financial enhancement (increase in diyyah) does not apply. The narrations cited on this matter are considered weak in transmission and therefore cannot serve as valid legal evidence.