This study aims at reaching an appropriate definition for the term (siaq) context, and will investigate whether (siaq) context is proof, what conditions have to be applied in order to regard it an evidence, and its effect on (dalalat al-umum) textual implications of the general meaning. The study is divided into an introduction, two chapters and a conclusion. Each chapter consists of three sections. The first section in the first chapter discusses the meaning of (siag) context according to the understanding of legal theorists (scholars of Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh}), and the study comes out with its own definition for (siaq) context that is a text consists of (qara'in) signs, indicating an exact meaning meant by (khitab al-shar'i) lawgiver. Then, the section addresses the relation between (siaq) context and some relevant terms such as (qarinah) a sign, (nazm) a structure of a text, and (makam) an exact meaning resulted of linking between a structure of a text/speech and its surrounding circumstances. The second section highlights types of contexts, followed by the third section that addresses its proof, and reveals that (siaq) context could be used as an evidence under certain criteria, so (siag) context can result in an effect on (tawil al-zahir) interpreting manifest meaning, and (baian al mijmal) clarifying ambiguity. The second chapter highlights the effect of context on (umum) the general meaning. The first section states the definition of (umum) general meaning with its types and its implication (dalalat al-umum) between being (zanni) probable or (gat 'i) definitive. The second section reiterates through some practical examples that (siaq) context affects textual implications of the general meaning (dalalat al-umum) by raising its status from being manifest (zahir) to be explicit (al-nass). Such effect depends on how strong/weak the general meaning (umom) is, how strong/weak (siaq) context is, and the diligence (ijtihad) of an independent legal thinker (mujtaid) to opt (siaq) context as an evidence. Therefore, there are different interpretations of proof among independent legal thinkers (mujtaids) appear in implemented examples stated in this study.