How to Issue Fatwas on Matters of Disagreement

Question:
What is the position of the mufti regarding matters of disagreement, especially when the evidence is balanced, and does he issue a fatwa based on what he considers the stronger position in these matters?

Answer:
Yes, the position of the mufti is to look into matters of disagreement, seek out what is stronger by evidence, and then issue a fatwa for himself and for others after he is reassured that what has become apparent to him is the stronger position. Whether the matter has two opinions, three, or more, he looks at the evidence, reflects on what these scholars said, and what those scholars said, and what those others said, and what these scholars argued with, and what those others argued with.
Then he acts according to the established rules in this regard, such as reconciling hadiths when reconciliation is possible, applying abrogation when the conditions for abrogation are met, and preferring one opinion over another when abrogation and reconciliation are not possible. He acts on what the scholars have established and explained regarding the methods of argumentation, and relies on the stronger position in cases of disagreement. This requires insight from the scholar and knowledge of the opinions of the scholars regarding matters of disagreement.
I previously mentioned in the lecture that the scholars said: The position of the student of knowledge in matters of disagreement is sought in four ranks:

The First Rank: He looks at reconciliation, which is the first priority. If it is possible to reconcile between two hadiths, or multiple hadiths, or verses and hadiths, it is obligatory.
If reconciliation is not possible, the conditions for reconciliation are not met, and it is not facilitated, he moves to

The Rank The second: which is the rank of abrogation. If the conditions for abrogation are met, and it is known that the earlier text was abrogated by the later text, the ruling belongs to the later text. For example, regarding the qiblah, the qiblah was initially al-Masjid al-Aqsa, then it was abrogated by the Noble Ka'bah.
If knowledge of abrogation is not facilitated, and its conditions are not met, he moves to

The Rank The third time: which is preference (tarjih). He looks at the evidence of the two groups, or the different groups, and takes what is stronger. If one group has weak evidence, and the other has strong, authentic evidence, or if the evidence for one of the opinions is weaker, and the evidence for the other is stronger, he takes the stronger one. The scholars have explained this. If one group has one hadith, and the second group has more than one hadith, all of which are authentic, then the group with the many hadiths is stronger, and the other hadith held by the second group is considered anomalous. Taking the stronger position is obligatory when abrogation and reconciliation are not possible.
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Nukhba: "If it is contradicted by something stronger, the stronger is the preserved one, and its opposite is the anomalous one."
If preference is not facilitated, nor reconciliation, nor abrogation, he moves to

The Rank The fourth: which is withholding judgment, and not deciding on these disputed matters until the ruling becomes clear to him. This does not mean that he remains silent. No, he pays attention, reviews the evidence, researches, reflects, and consults the scholars who are near him, and whom he can consult by writing, by telegram, by telephone, or by any means. He consults the scholars and researches with them, hoping to benefit, so that one of the opinions becomes stronger in his view than the other. This is how the scholars do it.