Domestic violence against women is not merely a private family dispute; it may undermine victims’ physical and psychological security, human dignity, and effective access to justice. Using legal analysis, functional comparison, and a normative-critical approach, this study compares the legal and criminal protection of women victims of domestic violence in Iran and Malaysia and evaluates the possibility of localizing selected Malaysian protective mechanisms within the framework of Islamic criminal jurisprudence. The findings indicate that Iranian law, although providing general criminal remedies for assault, threats, insult and coercion, lacks an integrated framework for identifying domestic violence, assessing risk, and issuing urgent protection orders. Malaysia, by contrast, combines the Domestic Violence Act 1994 with the Penal Code and provides three levels of protection: EPO, IPO, and PO. The EPO is narrowly limited to fear of physical injury or actual physical injury and remains valid for seven days, while broader judicial orders operate during investigation and court proceedings. Malaysian case law further demonstrates that the need for rapid protection must be balanced with procedural fairness, the right to be heard, and judicial review. The study concludes that the Malaysian model should not be transplanted mechanically. Nevertheless, a two-tier, time-limited, and reviewable protection-order system, supported by clear institutional duties and proportionate sanctions for breach, can be adapted to Iranian law through the principles of human dignity, no harm, negation of hardship, prohibition of oppression, and public interest, while preserving legality, proportionality, and defenses rights.