The Ruling on Refuting Those Who Disagree in Matters of Independent Legal Reasoning

Some people say: One does not refute everyone; for if one were to refute this person and that person, who would remain to advise the Muslims? Is this correct?
In matters of independent legal reasoning, people do not refute one another.Matters of independent legal reasoning are like a person who says: For example, regarding camels: one view holds that their meat invalidates the ablution, while another view does not hold this, and one does not refute the other. However, if someone is an innovator calling to a religious innovation, it is necessary to refute him; because there is no room for independent legal reasoning in religious innovations, as all the Salaf agreed upon rejecting religious innovations. There is no leniency in this; but as for jurisprudential matters—for example— where people differ and it is a matter for independent legal reasoning, we cannot say: refute everyone who disagrees with your independent legal reasoning.And as I said: If we opened this door, the whole world would become refuters and those being refuted.