If the scholars of our era disagree on two positions, with some holding it forbidden and others holding it permissible, and then someone after them says it is disliked in order to reconcile

The Shaykh : If the scholars of our era disagree on two positions, with some holding it forbidden and others holding it permissible, and then someone after them says it is disliked in order to reconcile the evidence and the two positions, is this considered introducing a third position?
Yes, this is in reality the introduction of a third position, because he ruled with a ruling that neither these nor those stated. However, if he said: it is permissible in one case but not another, then he has not introduced a third position; rather, he has stated part of the position of those who said it is permissible or forbidden. This is a point that a person should be alert to. If scholars disagree on two positions: permissibility and prohibition, and a person says: I say it is disliked, reconciling the two positions, we say: No, this is not a reconciliation of the two positions, because you have said or brought forth a third ruling, which is dislike. But if you said: it is obligatory in one case but not another, you have not departed from the consensus. An example of this is the statement of those who said that witr is obligatory, and another statement that says witr is not obligatory. Then Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said: It is obligatory for one who has a night recitation, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): unlike others. He said: This is the position of some of those who make it obligatory absolutely, so he did not depart from the consensus.