Validity's Criterion of witnesse's testimony, rational confidence or obedient acceptance?

Amara in jurisprudential sources is said to any evidence which indicate the fact. Indication that is not definitively in the sight of Foghaha and osooliyeen, but due to the prevailing conjecture which can be achieved from that evidence. Witnesses’ testimony (bayyinah) as valid evidence in the jurisprudence and law is known as an “amara” in the sight of jurists witch its Validity is from Legislator. and meanwhile the majority of the jurisprudents validated the bayyinah- which is an instance of ammarah- because lawgiver validated it not because of its ability in providing valid conjecture, and also they named its provided conjecture because of bayyinah’s confirmation by lawgiver as terms such as Shar’i knowledge, regular or common knowledge, obedience knowledge, revealed knowledge, and complementing of exploration.Beside of this group, some believed that origin of Bayyinah’s validity is manner of wises which is confirmed by lawgiver and meanwhile the stronger conjecture causes validation for Bayyinah In spite of the imperfect finding of fact, because lawgiver completes the imperfect finding ability and validated it.The result of difference between these two opinions is effect on conditions of Bayyinah’s validity and on its effects and its verdicts, including mandatory issuing the verdict by judge after testimony of witnesses, testimony’s validity after return from it, value of numbers of witnesses, and… . According to research’s finding and researcher’s opinion, the stronger conjecture and rational confidence is the Validity’s Criterion of witnesses’ testimony which holy lawgiver has validated because of it. and also scholars which accepted Obedient validity for testimony, admitted this matter in discussions about ranked validity, conflict between two Bayyinahs, most just witnesses, and maximizing of witnesses.