Criticism and justification of role of rational evidence in interpretation of legal texts

There are many factors in interpretation process of a text and in this article the role of rational evidence -the popular concept in Osoul fiqh- in interpretation of Acts has been analyzed. Although rational evidence in Osoul fiqh has being studied as a source of legislation, it has been considered as a commentator in this article. On one hand utilization of rational evidence in interpretation process is in need of justification of its necessity and statement of its consequences, on the other hand it necessitates answering to the criticism of criticizers. The most decisive dimension of the necessity of this theory is validity of rational evidence because of its certainty. One of the most significant consequences of the theory is the recognition of rational evidence as a source of law. The most important criticisms of this theory is lack of criterion in order to evaluate rational evidence and existence of controversy between rational interpretation and intentionalism theory -which is studied in Hermeneutic-; it may be claimed that acceptation of rational evidence as an external factor in interpretation process prevents commentator from understanding of legislator`s intention. So, we try to refuse the criticism stating rational evidence is not definite and prove that acceptation of the role of rational evidence in interpretation process does not lead to ignorance of legislation and legislator`s place.