In audio-visual media, direct (live) and indirect (produced and recorded) broadcasting are used to transmit messages and present various programs. Some contemporary jurists, who are mentioned in this article as those who believe in separation, believe that watching or listening to programs presented in the form of these two types of broadcasting are different in terms of religious ruling. Perhaps watching or listening to a program directly (such as watching men's swimming competitions for women) is considered forbidden, but receiving the same program indirectly is considered permissible. Famous jurists do not distinguish between these two types of broadcasting in terms of religious ruling and consider the ruling of both to be the same. In this study, which was prepared using a descriptive-analytical method and using library resources and related software, after explaining the evidence for the separation view, such as the separation of sound and image from the narration of sound and image, the emergence of narrations in the optional verb, the clarification of the narration on separation, the emergence of titles in the implicit in the beginning, the rule of proximity and the abandonment of the mind to live broadcasting, the analysis and They have been examined and, citing evidence such as the applicability of the evidence of the rulings to the visible and audible, the wisdom of legislating the rulings, the association of separation with nonsense and futility, the contradiction of the view of separation with customary understanding, and the necessity of a ruling belonging to a single subject, the famous saying has been confirmed and emphasized.