Considering the status and rank of those who differ in knowledge?

The Shaykh : Another criterion: Who are the ones who may differ? This is a very important point for us to understand the answer to this question. The writer referred to says: "A jurisprudential disagreement, additional and constitutive innovation, and adherence to them in absolute acts of worship is a jurisprudential disagreement."
Is a jurisprudential disagreement one where there are mujtahids, or even multiple mujtahids, who agree on an opinion, and then some followers of a scholar (muqallids) build an opinion for themselves, and then some later scholars say: "The disagreement is jurisprudential"? This is not a correct scientific expression...
A jurisprudential disagreement is when the point of contention is between the leading mujtahids who, in themselves, before people testified to their status, felt that they had reached a level of knowledge that enabled any one of them to say: "I see it this way," "I understand it this way." Then, subsequently, people also testified that they had reached this rank. And this testimony, of course, did not justify that for them; rather, this testimony reveals the reality of the rank they had reached in knowledge.
As for when those who differed or opposed were not, in the first place, mujtahids in their own reality, but rather they explicitly state that they are not, they explicitly tell people—and more than that—they take pride in the fact that they are not mujtahids. Even if they do not make this explicit, if we interpret the statement of some of them when they take pride in being followers of a scholar (muqallids), the interpretation is that they take pride in being non-mujtahids. There is no difference in expression at that point except a verbal one, just as the difference between "according to the Hanafi school" or "with the Hanafis" is the same; "all roads lead to the mill," the meaning is the same. So, these people who take pride in being followers of a scholar (muqallids), that is equivalent to them taking pride in being non-mujtahids, and this is equivalent, in the end, to them taking pride in being non-scholars, and this is equivalent to them being ignorant.
Once we know this fact, and there is no room for anyone to ever deny it; at that point, where is this jurisprudential disagreement? Who are the leading mujtahids who said that there is a good innovation in the religion? Either there is someone among the followers of a scholar (muqallids) who argued for their view of approving innovation in the religion and cited the opinion of an imam as evidence. Absolutely, they do not have a single report (athar) from any of the leading mujtahids, especially when they limit the imams to only the four.
So, my purpose with this is to draw attention to the fact that this writer's expression was not a precise scientific expression; because he included in the phrase "the scholars" these followers of a scholar (muqallids) who disclaim being among the scholars. This is their necessary implication, whether they like it or not; as long as they admit that they are followers of a scholar (muqallids), then they are not scholars. And they say: "What is the function of the follower of a scholar (muqallid)?" These are facts with which we can confront the greatest follower of a scholar (muqallid), if there is a great or small follower of a scholar (muqallid).