@article { author = {Alavi, Seyed Jafar and Rezvani, Gholam Heidar}, title = {Investigation of the Famous Theory of Testimony on Testimony}, journal = {Civil Jurisprudence Doctrines}, volume = {11}, number = {20}, pages = {153-178}, year = {2020}, publisher = {Razavi University of Islamic Sciences}, issn = {2251-936X}, eissn = {2783-3690}, doi = {10.30513/cjd.2020.477}, abstract = {The witness himself directly testifies and testifies on it or by witnesses to the incident being informed of that event and testifying to his testimony. The one who witnesses the event and testifies about it, his testimony is the original testimony. And he himself bears witness, and the one who testifies to his testimony before the ruler is called his subordinate witness, and he himself is called the subordinate witness. Since the presence of the original witness is often overlooked, it is necessary to elucidate and expurgation this argument. Many jurisprudents have accepted testimony on the testimony by following of seven conditions as evidence to prove the claim; which have been explicitly stated and some have been stated in their phrases. But from the point of view of this research, there is no convincing reason for satisfying the first, second, fifth, sixth, and seventh conditions, so these conditions can be criticized and seem unnecessary. Famous reasons in support of the inadmissibility of testimony on the testimony of subordinate witnesses which is in expression is third-party testimony is also said to be defective and the credibility of the third testimony is defensible.  }, keywords = {testimony,Testimony on Testimony,Subrogation testimony,Principle witness,Subsidiary witness}, title_fa = {بررسی نظریه مشهور در شهادت بر شهادت}, abstract_fa = {شاهد یا خود مستقیم گواه واقعه بوده و بر آن شهادت می‌دهد و یا به واسطه شاهدِ واقعه از آن رخداد اطلاع یافته و بر شهادت او گواهی می‌دهد. کسی که خودش گواه واقعه بوده است و بر آن شهادت می‌دهد، شهادتش شهادت اصل و خود وی شاهد اصل و کسی که بر شهادت او نزد حاکم شهادت می‌دهد، شهادتش شهادت فرع و خود او شاهد فرع نامیده می‌شود. از آنجا که حضور شاهد اصلی در بسیاری از موارد متعذر می‌گردد، تبیین و تنقیح این بحث ضروری است. بسیاری از فقیهان، شهادت بر شهادت را با رعایت هفت شرط به عنوان دلیل اثبات دعوی پذیرفته‌اند که به اشتراط برخی تصریح کرده و برخی را در ضمن عباراتشان بیان کرده‌اند. اما از نگاه این تحقیق، دلیل قانع کننده‌ای برای اشتراط شرط اول، دوم، پنجم، ششم و هفتم، از سوی فقها ارائه نشده است؛ از این رو این شروط قابل نقد است و غیر لازم به نظر می‌رسد. همچنین ادله مشهور در رابطه با اثبات عدم مقبولیت شهادت بر شهادتِ شهود فرع که اصطلاحاً به آن شهادت ثالثه می‌گویند نیز نارسا و قاصر است و اعتبار شهادت سوم قابل دفاع می‌باشد.}, keywords_fa = {شهادت,شهادت بر شهادت,نیابت در شهادت,شاهد اصل,شاهد فرع}, url = {https://cjd.razavi.ac.ir/article_477.html}, eprint = {https://cjd.razavi.ac.ir/article_477_7e7d4d685d73060f6c63c971f8eb0c69.pdf} }