And al-Shafi'i said: His testimony is not accepted. This has also been reported from al-Nakha'i, Abu Hashim, and it is a matter of disagreement (1) regarding (2) al-Hasan, Iyas, and Ibn Abi Layla. Al-Shafi'i permitted his testimony through istifada (public notoriety) and tarjama (interpretation/attestation), and if one makes an admission in his presence while the blind man’s hand is on his head, then he verifies him until he appears before the judge and testifies against him; but he did not permit it in other than that. This is because one whose testimony is not permissible regarding actions is not permissible regarding statements, like a child, and because voices resemble one another, so certainty is not achieved; therefore, it is not permissible for him to testify based on them, like (testifying based on) handwriting. Our evidence is the words of the Almighty: "And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men" (3), and the rest of the verses regarding testimony. Furthermore, he is an upright man whose narration is accepted, so his testimony is accepted, like that of a sighted person. He differs from a child, for a child is neither a man, nor upright, nor is his narration accepted. Also, hearing is one of the senses through which certainty is achieved, and it may be that the one against whom he is testifying is someone the blind man is familiar with, has associated with frequently, and knows his voice with certainty; therefore, his testimony must be accepted in matters he is certain of, like a sighted person. There is no way to deny the attainment of certainty in some cases. Qatada said: Hearing has physiognomy (qiyafa) like the physiognomy of sight. For this reason, the companions of al-Shafi'i said: His testimony is accepted in matters that are established through istifada, and it is not established in their view until he hears it from two upright witnesses, and he must know them so as to know their uprightness; so if it is valid for him to know the two witnesses, it is valid for him to know the one making the admission. There is no disagreement regarding the acceptance of his narration, the permissibility of his listening to his wife if he knows her voice, the validity of his accepting a marriage contract (4), and the possibility of voices resembling one another is like the possibility of images resembling one another. He differs from (testifying regarding) actions, for the perception of those is through sight, which is not possible for a blind person, while statements are perceived through hearing, and he shares (6) this with the sighted person—and perhaps even excels in it. It differs from handwriting, for if he were certain of the person who wrote the document, or saw him while he was writing it, it is not permissible for him to testify regarding what is written in it. Once this is established, it is not permissible for him to testify unless he is certain of the voice and knows the person against whom he is testifying with certainty. If he considers it possible that it could be someone else's voice, it is not permissible for him to testify based on it, just as if the person being testified against was confused for the sighted person, and he did not recognize him.