There is no need for them in testimony in most cases. As for what occurs through vision, it pertains to actions; such as usurpation, destruction, adultery, drinking wine, and other actions. Likewise, visible attributes; such as defects in sold items and the like, these are not undertaken as testimony except through vision, because it is possible to testify to them definitively, so one does not resort to anything else. As for hearing, it is of two types: one of them is from the person being testified against, such as contracts; like sale, hiring, and other verbal statements. Thus, it is required to hear the words of the contracting parties with certainty, and the viewing of the contracting parties is not considered, if he knows them and is certain that it is their speech. This was the view of Ibn Abbas, al-Zuhri, Rabi'ah, al-Layth, Shurayh, 'Ata', Ibn Abi Layla, and Malik. Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i held that testimony is not permissible until the one testifying sees the person being testified against, because voices resemble each other, so it is not permissible to testify based on them without vision, like handwriting. Our evidence is that he knew the person being testified against with certainty, so his testimony against him is permissible, just as if he had seen him. The possibility of voices resembling each other is like the possibility of images resembling each other. Testimony is only permissible for one who knows the person being testified against with certainty, and knowledge may be obtained through hearing with certainty. The Law (Shari'ah) has considered this by permitting narration without vision; for this reason, the narration of a blind person is accepted, as is the narration of one who narrated from the wives of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) without being their mahram. As for the second type, we will mention it, if Allah the Almighty wills, in the issue that follows this.

Section: If he knows the person being testified against by his name, his person, and his lineage, it is permissible to testify against him, whether he is present or absent. If he does not know that, it is not permissible to testify against him in his absence, but it is permissible to testify against him while he is present by knowing his person. Ahmad stated this. Muhanna said: I asked Ahmad about a man who testified for a man regarding a right he had against another man, while he did not know the name of this one nor the name of that one, except that he testifies for him. He said: If he says, "I testify that this one has [a right] against this one," and they are both witnesses together, there is no harm in it. But if he is absent, he should not testify until he knows his name.

Section: A woman is like a man, in that if he knows her, and knows her name and her lineage, it is permissible to testify against her