One of the key contextual indicators in the process of interpreting the Holy Qur’an is the concept of siyaq (context). Nevertheless, in certain cases, some exegetes—particularly the author of Al-Mizan—have considered interpretation independent of context (ghadh ‘an al-siyaq) to be valid and authoritative. This perspective raises two critical questions for researchers: the authoritative validity of Qur’anic context and the feasibility of a context-independent interpretive approach. This study aims to identify the most accurate stance on these issues by critically analyzing the diverse views and methodologies of Qur’anic scholars, exegetes, and jurists. Using a library-based method and an analytical-critical approach grounded in the dialectic of evidences, the research concludes that, based on an inductive examination of the stylistic features of Qur’anic expression—such as its layered structure, fluidity, and functional diversity—the notion of relative validity of context represents the most balanced and comprehensive viewpoint. Adopting this perspective resolves the shortcomings of other approaches while preserving their strengths. Furthermore, the tension between contextual independence and contextual validity can be reconciled within the framework of relative validity, making selective disregard of certain contextual layers scientifically justifiable