What is the validity of the statement: “There is no forbidding of evil in matters of scholarly disagreement”?

Question:
May Allah reward you, Your Eminence, father. The questioner says: I find it difficult to understand a statement, which is the statement of some of them: “There is no forbidding of evil in matters of scholarly disagreement.” He says: I find it difficult to understand the statement of some of them: “There is no forbidding of evil in matters of scholarly disagreement.”

Answer:
Scholarly disagreement is of two types. The first is disagreement where the evidence has become clear in favor of one of the opinions. In this case, it is not permissible for us to leave what the evidence has established and take what contradicts the evidence. This is the first type. In this case, one forbids the evil of the one who adopts an opinion that contradicts the evidence; he is rebuked for it. There is no opinion of anyone that stands with the evidence, and there is no independent legal reasoning that stands with an explicit text. The second type is disagreement where the evidence has not become clear in favor of either of the disputants. Each of the opinions is possible, and the evidence has not become clear in favor of either one. This is the type in which there is no forbidding of evil. This is the type in which there is no forbidding of evil, because the evidence has not become clear. This opinion is possible and that opinion is possible. Yes.