Why do the scholars not gather in a scholarly committee to resolve the disagreements occurring in the Islamic arena and to answer the questions of Muslims?

The questioner : Our teacher, there is also a question related to the topic of disagreement I mentioned, apart from the issues of jihad.
The question says: There are many disagreements among scholars regarding certain fatwas and interpretations, so why is there not a circle comprising these scholars to resolve these disagreements based on the Sunnah and the Qur'an and following the four Imams in that?

The Shaykh : How in following what?

The questioner : Ah, to resolve these disagreements based on the Sunnah and the Qur'an and following the four Imams in that?

The Shaykh : Hmm, as for this question, the subject of its answer is like the subject of jihad. Who forms the committee that investigates these disagreements and looks at them through the lens of the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the pious predecessors? Who? I advise my brothers to be practical and not to be imaginative. Right now, we cannot even gather fifty people on one opinion, let alone say that an Islamic scholar forms [a committee of] nine hundred million or more, as some say. There are many scholars, some of whom are official scholars graduated from universities, and some are others. So who gathers these people? Who unifies their ideas? And we find the matter more difficult than we can imagine implementing such a proposal that the brother requests.The questioner : Today, we are in dispute over the obligation of returning to the Book and the Sunnah.
One of the attendees: Allahu Akbar!

The Shaykh : Al-Albani: And not being fanatical toward the Imams. We are still differing on this. Many shaykhs here and there, many doctors, and perhaps some of you remember that this issue was raised recently in some newspapers, and our brother Ali responded to him, which stirred up this sectarian zeal—this madhhab fanaticism. He is a doctor, graduated from a university, and teaches at a university, yet he still does not agree with us on the obligation of Muslims returning to the Book and the Sunnah in the rulings of the Shari'ah in which they differ. This is one thing.
The second thing I noticed from the question, he says:The questioner : And following the four madhahib. This condition is not obligatory for any Muslim scholar, let alone the scholars, if this gathering requested by this [brother] is facilitated for them.The questioner : It is not necessary for them to be bound by the four madhahib, because there are other madhahib, known to be from the Imams of the Muslims, such as Sufyan al-Thawri, and 'Abd al-Rahman al-Mahdi, and 'Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, and al-Awza'i. All these are Imams among the Imams of the Muslims, with their own opinions and their own independent legal reasoning. And the authentic hadith... What Allah Blessed and Exalted has not obligated upon the scholars of the Muslims to be bound by one of the four madhahib. Take a real example now: We have been, since [...], regarding the three pronouncements of divorce, that only one divorce takes effect. And the entire Islamic world, until twenty or thirty years ago, in the Shari'ah courts, ruled that if a man says to his wife: "You are divorced three times," she is divorced from him with a major final divorce. But misfortunes, not the Sunnah and following it—much to our deep regret—awakened them. The abundance of divorce problems in the Shari'ah courts compelled some judges, even among those fanatical about the madhhab, especially the Hanafi madhhab, to reconsider this branch of what they call personal status. They reconsider the divorcing of the wife due to the man saying to her: "You are divorced three times." They had no choice but to take the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah. And the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah is based on an authentic hadith that still exists in Sahih Muslim. Divorce in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), in the time of Abu Bakr, and for half of the caliphate of 'Umar, was that the phrase of three was one divorce. Then 'Umar ibn al-Khattab saw fit to make it three, so he made it three for a wisdom that appeared to him. And the Islamic world continued to proceed on this until this time, when some judges were compelled to reconsider this issue, they returned to the authentic hadith. They did not return to the authentic hadith that considers the divorce by the phrase of three as one divorce because the Sunnah is like that, but rather because of the many incidents that caused many homes to be destroyed and desolated due to a man's haste and his saying to his wife: "You are divorced three times." So they returned to the Sunnah despite their reluctance. But until now, many shaykhs still issue fatwas to the man who says to his wife: "You are divorced three times," saying: "You are divorced from me, so you are not lawful to you thereafter until you marry another husband."
The four madhahib—the point is—the four madhahib say this: divorce by the phrase of three is three. The brother's proposal that there be a gathering of these scholars and following the four madhahib is not correct from a Shari'ah perspective, because in the four madhahib, some ideas contradict the Sunnah. Among them is the issue of divorce by the phrase of three. This is an error, contrary to the hadith narrated by Imam Muslim from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that divorce by the phrase of three in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), the time of Abu Bakr, and half of the caliphate of 'Umar, was one divorce. Then 'Umar thought it best to make it three as a discipline for them. So returning to the Sunnah is the obligation, and not returning to following the Imams; because they sometimes may exercise independent legal reasoning—as 'Umar exercised independent legal reasoning—and the Sunnah may be on one side, and we must follow the Sunnah, whether it is with an Imam from the four Imams or with another Imam other than the four Imams, because they did not become famous among the Muslims. For example, among the Imams known in the books of fiqh and hadith is al-Layth ibn Sa'd the Egyptian. When the scholars write his biography, they say he is more knowledgeable than Malik. Malik is the Imam of the City of Migration. They say he is more deserving of being followed than Imam Malik. But Imam Malik was preserved by his companions, whereas al-Layth ibn Sa'd was neglected by his companions. It was written for Malik that his madhhab would remain, but as for al-Layth ibn Sa'd, his madhhab is recorded in the books of hadith and books of athar.
In summary: This condition that came in the questionThe questioner : at its end is not necessary for the scholars of the Muslims, if they gather, to adhere to it. And likewise, it is not necessary for the scholars of the Muslims, even if the gathering is not facilitated for them, if they exercise independent legal reasoning in some issues, except to adhere to the Sunnah, whether it agrees with the four madhahib or not.