Abstract This article critically examines classical Islamic legal frameworks governing the admissibility of women's testimony in ḥudūd (fixed punishments) and qiṣāṣ (retributive justice) cases, tracing their doctrinal evolution and contemporary reinterpretations. Grounded in Qurʾānic injunctions and Prophetic ḥadīth, classical jurists generally restricted women's testimonial roles in criminal proceedings, often invoking epistemological and sociocultural rationales. Modern legal systems in Muslim‐majority countries—including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco—continue to navigate the tension between inherited juridical norms and contemporary imperatives of gender equity and evidentiary reliability. This study highlights that many classical restrictions were contextually contingent rather than divinely mandated. Drawing on legal‐theoretical discourses, Prophetic precedent, and the framework of maqāṣid al‐sharīʿah (higher objectives of Islamic law), it argues for a recalibrated evidentiary paradigm where credibility, rather than gender, determines admissibility. Case studies from hybrid legal systems illustrate both the rigidity of traditional positions and the potential for reform through maqāṣid‐oriented jurisprudence. The article concludes that the flexibility inherent in Islamic legal theory not only allows but necessitates the revision of evidentiary standards to meet contemporary demands for gender justice and procedural fairness. This analysis contributes to broader discussions on Islamic legal renewal ( tajdīd ), emphasizing the dynamic interplay between tradition.
Zainab Amin (Mon,) studied this question.