the disagreement, leaving it hanging and never pointing out which of the opinions is sound—this, too, is a deficiency. If he knowingly declares an unsound view to be correct, he has deliberately lied; if he does so unknowingly, he has erred.

Commentary
That is, when someone cites the various positions without indicating the correct one, he may or may not be blameworthy. If he knows the sound view but conceals it, he is at fault; but if he truly does not know—if the two opinions appear equal to him—he is not obliged to decide between them. This occurs even in the author’s own writings, whether in his legal opinions or elsewhere: he will say, “There are two views among the scholars; this is the majority position, this is the view of So-and-so, this is the opinion of Malik, this is that of al-Shafiʿi,” and the like.

Thus, anyone who reports scholarly disagreement must, as a matter of trustworthiness, transmit all the opinions, for—as the Shaykh observed—he might otherwise omit the very view that is closest to the truth. After listing the opinions, if he possesses evidence that clearly supports one of them, he is obliged to state the preferred view so that the listener is not left bewildered. If he lacks such knowledge, there is no blame in merely mentioning the disagreement without identifying the stronger position, for Allah charges no soul beyond its capacity.

Likewise, whoever stirs up a dispute over an issue that yields no benefit, or recites a long list of verbal variations that in reality reduce to one or two substantive views, has only squandered time and puffed himself up with what is not true. Such a person is like a man clad in two garments of falsehood. Allah alone grants success in finding what is right.