This research addresses the cause of disagreement in the issue of the reality of verbal indications among fundamentalists and the reason for this disagreement. The locus of disagreement in the matter, which was in whether verbal indications impart certainty or not, has been clarified. The disagreement has manifested in two schools of thought: some believe that verbal transmission indications only suggest conjecture, while others believe these indications provide definitive certainty. Subsequently, the reasons for disagreement in this matter are elucidated, stemming from two causes: the first pertains to prioritizing rational evidence over transmitted evidence, linked to foundational doctrinal principles. The second cause relates to whether individual reports impart knowledge, associated with foundational rules. The research concludes with several recommendations, including focusing on the study of reasons for disagreement in foundational matters and illustrating their interconnectedness. It also suggests studying the impact of linguistic context on the meanings of legal terms, as scholars differ on the implications of certain terms, and a comparative analysis between jurisprudential schools regarding the implications of verbal indications, particularly concerning their definitive and conjectural meanings. May God grant success.