If one of the later scholars interprets a verse with other verses in a convincing manner, and this contradicts the interpretation of the Salaf, do we adopt it?

The Shaykh : Yes

The questioner : Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And peace be upon you.

The questioner : Noble Shaykh, if one of the later scholars interprets Qur'anic verses with other verses, and it is convincing and compelling, do we reject his interpretation just because the Salaf had a different interpretation?

The Shaykh : If the later scholars interpret a verse with an interpretation that the earlier scholars did not discuss, and it does not contradict them, then it is adopted. This is like the interpretation of many cosmic verses with what has now been established, which was previously unknown. However, if it clearly contradicts what the Salaf were upon, such as interpreting as "He took possession of the Throne," then it must be rejected and it is not permissible to accept it.

The questioner : Well, Shaykh, the interpretation was in Surat Yusuf regarding Yusuf (peace be upon him). The Salaf said he was the minister of finance, and al-Rahil said he was not the minister of finance, but rather he was the king, or he was not the king, but he was al-Aziz.

The Shaykh : Yes, no. As for al-Aziz, he was not al-Aziz, because he said:

The questioner : Yes, he became al-Aziz later on.

The Shaykh : Perhaps this is a matter of whether he was a king or just a minister of finance?
If we look at the saying of Allah the Exalted: , we say he was the minister of finance. And if we look at the king's saying: , we say he was also a special advisor. And if we look at his actions later on: and the like.
And from his actions, we say that perhaps in the end he became the king, either by the death of al-Aziz or by his relinquishing the kingship. Allah knows best.

The questioner : Excuse me, Shaykh, because when he said: , this man used it as evidence that the treasuries are the supreme authority. He cited many verses:

The Shaykh : Yes

The questioner :

The Shaykh : Yes

The questioner : So he used them as evidence that they are the supreme authority, not just the ministry of finance.

The Shaykh : Yes, this is an error on his part, because his saying: is a possessive construction (mudaf) and a possessed noun (mudaf ilayh), and the possessive is not the same as the possessed noun. The heavens are one thing, and their treasuries are another. And "there is nothing except that We have its treasuries" is the same thing. So the possessive and the possessed noun are two different things. Yes.