What is your opinion of this statement made by a prominent Islamic writer?

The Shaykh : ...For the best of speech is the speech of Allah, and the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and the worst of matters are their newly invented ones, and every newly invented matter is a religious innovation, and every religious innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire.
He says:The questioner : What is your opinion of this statement made by a prominent Islamic writer, who said: "The additional and subtractive innovations, and adhering to them in absolute acts of worship, are a matter of jurisprudential disagreement; each has his own view in it, and there is no harm in stating the truth with evidence"?

The Shaykh : In response to this statement, I say: There is no doubt that in matters of disagreement, the dispute should not become so intense that the disputants quarrel for the sake of the disagreement. This is because disagreement is a natural matter; that is, it is one of the cosmic laws that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has imposed on people. If they could all be on one idea and one opinion, that would be impossible for them. However, it is not impossible at all that when they differ in matters where disagreement is inevitable, this disagreement does not lead them to hatred, distance, quarreling, and hostility. They are capable of avoiding this, and their model in this is the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). As you heard in the previous hadith: , they are the best of people after the Messenger (peace be upon him) and his brothers among the previous prophets. So I say: These Companions differed in many matters, but we observe that this disagreement did not go beyond the disagreements they call jurisprudential branches, and it did not extend to doctrinal or intellectual disagreements. This is a grace from the Companions. When these Companions differed in some jurisprudential matters, they did not become hostile to one another. For example, some of them adhered to the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifah, saying: "The flow of blood invalidates the ablution," and some adhered to the opinion of Imam al-Shafi'i, saying: "Touching a woman invalidates the ablution," and similar disagreements. But did the matter reach the point where that Companion who, through his independent legal reasoning, held that the flow of blood invalidates the ablution, would refuse to pray behind his brother Companion who had performed ablution and then blood flowed from him and he did not repeat the ablution, as we do today? The answer is: No, their disagreement did not lead to this schism, contention, and mutual aversion.
So, if disagreement is inevitable because Allah imposed it on people by giving each of them a specific intellectual and scientific capacity that differs from the capacities of others, we say: This disagreement is a natural and innate necessity. However, this disagreement should not be the cause of contention and schism, such as what our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) forbade in His saying: . This is what our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) forbade. But He did not forbid a person, in his independent legal reasoning, from reaching an opinion that contradicts the other opinion, provided he does not contradict an explicit text with his opinion, as the later scholars and those who follow without knowledge do today. This is a criterion that is necessary before proceeding to answer the question directly.