Investigating Validity of Probative Evidences and Its Application in Jurisprudence and Islamic Law

The validity of probative evidences is one of the fundamental discussions in methodology of religion. Probative evidences (religious circumstantial evidences) are among the evidences needed for interpretation and inference of the Sharia rules, the signifiers of which–in addition to comparative signified–have sometimes evidentiary effects. Evidentiary effect in methodology means the religious effects attributable to the rational instruments, necessities and requirements, either ordinary or accidental, which can be taken as evidence or codes of action. In case of the validity of probative evidence and its reasons, three theories may be put forth: Some jurists attribute the nature of evidence, in terms of proof, depending upon its validity thus rule on absolute validity of probative evidence. Some others, however believing in absolute validity of the probative evidence, have attributed the reason to the quality of proof and attribution of the reasons for validity of the evidence. The third group of jurists believe in a detailed manner which draws a line of separation between various types of evidence and probative evidences. Apparently, to study the validity of probative evidences, the reasons for validity of the evidence must be taken into consideration. Therefore, if the reason behind validity of the evidence is an instance of compulsory obedience, its probative reasoning shall not be valid but if it is based on logical and consistent usages (which is true in the case of the majority of cases) the criterion will be constraints in logical usages and related terms. This is because men of reason at times take something as evidence while at the same time reject its probative values, such as evidence on probation, possession, presumption of marriage bed, and confession.