Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "It is not valid except with two just, male, accountable, hearing, and speaking witnesses"

The Shaykh : ... So if we want to contract a marriage for two witnesses who do not hear well, the guardian takes one of their ears and takes the other's ear and says to him, "I have married you to my daughter," yes, but this is not valid. The condition that they must be hearing is not valid. The condition is that they understand the contract. So even if it were assumed that the offer was written on a paper and the acceptance was written below it, and it was presented to them while they can see, that would suffice. Okay, "speaking", and this too, the witnesses must be speaking, and the opposite of that are the mute. The one who does not speak is not valid to be a witness in a marriage contract. Why? Because if he is needed, how do we know, and he does not speak? But this too is not valid. The correct view is that the testimony is valid even if they are not speaking, and they deliver the testimony by what? By gesture. If they are needed, they deliver it by gesture. How does he gesture? What is the gesture? The husband and wife are brought, yes, in front of them, and then, meaning, the important thing is whatever gesture is made. So the condition of speaking is not valid. Okay, also the condition of justice, but this is not valid. What is the condition? So the testimony of two open sinners is valid. Okay, he says.