A legal discussion should separate lexical meaning, strength of indication, and external evidence. A disagreement may concern a general expression’s scope, a valid exception, or the reliability and precedence of another report. Merely listing different outcomes is not a complete explanation.
A disciplined comparison first identifies common ground, then the precise disputed question, the relevant evidence, and finally the strength of each proof. A familiar opinion is not thereby an explicit revelation; a preferred interpretation should not be portrayed as the only grammatically conceivable meaning without justification.
Example: one jurist applies a general wording while another excludes a special case because of a second proof. The dispute may concern specification, not the basic meaning of the Qur’anic term.