One may possibly say according to his belief...

One may possibly say according to his belief, “ Subh [dawn] prayer has two rak‘ah s [cycles or units],” and another person would say based on his belief and understanding of religion, “ Subh prayer has three rak‘ah s,” while both of them are credible and acceptable! According to this view, once we believe that subh prayer has two rak‘ah s, we have no right to ask others to perform it in two rak‘ah s. According to our understanding and interpretation of religion, subh prayer has two rak‘ah s.

There might be another understanding of religion according to which subh prayer consists of three rak‘ah s. The latter is also an understanding or interpretation of religion. There is no difference between the two interpretations in terms of value. The interpretation of every person is worthy of respect for himself. No one has the right to treat his interpretation of religion as absolute and ask others to understand and interpret religion the way he understands and interprets it!

My understanding or interpretation of religion is that which is pleasing and the truth for me. The same is true for another person. This is in spite of the contradiction between the two interpretations because knowledge and understanding has contractions and extensions such that one of the interpretations or understanding may possibly be on one side of a spectrum while another interpretation on the other side.

It is possible that today a person proves a religious narrative and tomorrow another person negates it. The reason behind these differences is that real religion is inaccessible to us and what is at our disposal is our knowledge of religion. This knowledge and interpretation is also alterable and not the same for all persons.

The distinction between the domain of relative interpretations and the domain of absolute interpretations At the outset, let us pose these questions: Do the proponents of the theory of “the contraction and expansion of the path” believe that every case in religion can have many interpretations, understandings and readings? Do only some religious cases have different interpretations and readings?

Most of the reasons they cite prove only the difference of interpretations and understandings of some religious narratives. But they generalize this specific reason and apply it to the entire domain of religion and all religious narratives. Then, they conclude that all religious narratives are subject to different interpretations and understandings.