The issue of the number and gender of witnesses in testifying about hearsay is one of the issues on which there is no consensus in Islamic jurisprudence.

Islamic jurists have tried to introduce the nature of the rulings related to witnessing on hearsay, so none of them have been able to introduce an independent and rational nature that is comprehensive in its effects and rulings.



Therefore, following this central question, what are the ratios of the nature of witnessing to hearsay and determining the effects and rulings that follow from it?



By examining the findings and descriptions of Islamic jurists regarding the issue, the application of this issue between the Imami jurisprudence and the Sunni jurisprudence can ensure the best type of rule selection to express the nature of witnessing on hearsay.



In the meantime, the demonstration of the evidentiary nature of witnessing on hearsay, the representative nature of testimony on hearsay, and the vicarious nature of testimony on hearsay, can justify one of the consequences of it.



In this research, the dual theory based on the justification of the basis for the work in terms of authority means the need to comply with two witnesses regardless of their variability compared to the next witness, and the justification of the work from the point of view of authority on one of the three bases mentioned, in order to clarify the situation of the subject area. The acceptance of women's testimony in hearsay testimony was considered as a new research finding.

This theory can compensate for the emptiness of Islamic jurisprudence regarding the undeniable necessity of observing two intermediary witnesses regardless of differences, and on the other hand, it can also compensate for the uncertainty of the statement regarding the acceptance of women's testimony.