According to the noble Qur’ān verses, testimony is obligatory, but there is a disagreement over the point that if the testifier can ask for payment from the one who benefits from the testimony for the action itself and physical behavior he/she does in forbearing and carrying out a testimony – in addition to the costs of commuting and other financial costs imposed on the testifier. This descriptive-analytical article demonstrates that the common belief about the illicitness of receiving payment for the action itself in obligatory acts in general – which also includes receiving payment for forbearing and carrying out the testimony – is disputed. Moreover, the tafṣīl theory – which deems it permissible to receive payment for the testimony forbearance due to the respectfulness of Muslims’ action, but takes it impermissible in carrying out the testimony because it might affect the content of testimony and might expose the testifier to accusations – can be disputed due to the lack of definitive evidence. Therefore, it seems that the permissibility of receiving payment for the action itself and the physical behavior of forbearing and carrying out the testimony can be supported because testimony in a non-canonical obligation, it does not require the proximity to God's intention, receiving payment does not discord with sincere intention in obligatory acts, and there is reliance on the “respect principle.”