Is it permissible to limit oneself to mentioning the preponderant opinion in matters of dispute, such as the disbelief of one who abandons prayer and the obligation of congregational prayer, without mentioning the other opinion, so that people do not cling to it and lose the benefit of advice?

There is no harm for a preacher or a teacher to limit themselves to mentioning one opinion on an issue and explaining it with its evidence, if they fear that mentioning differing opinions to the general public might lead them to cling to dispensations and become lax. This is not considered concealing knowledge, which is prohibited, because if spreading knowledge causes harm to the listener, it is better to refrain from it, and it may even be obligatory to do so. Anas and Al-Hasan Al-Basri regretted narrating the Hadith of the 'Uraniyyin to Al-Hajjaj. Ibn Mas'ud said: "You do not narrate a Hadith to people that their minds cannot comprehend, except that it will be a source of trial for some of them." Ali said: "Speak to people according to what they know. Do you want Allah and His Messenger to be denied?"

Therefore, if the preacher or jurist fears that mentioning the differing opinions regarding the ruling on one who abandons prayer might lead the questioner to be negligent in performing it, they may mention the texts indicating its obligation. The same applies to similar issues. It has been the custom of scholars to mention what they consider to be the most valid opinion and provide evidence for it, without referring to the differing opinions, especially if the questioner is a layperson.

However, the jurist or preacher must not lie about scholars or claim their consensus on an issue on which they do not agree. Rather, their statements must be precise and correspond to reality.