What is your opinion of this statement made by a prominent Islamic writer: “The additional and composite innovations, and adherence to them in absolute acts of worship, are a matter of jurisprudential disagreement in which each has his own opinion, and there is no harm in clarifying the truth with evidence”?

The Shaykh : ... Indeed, 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 an innovation, and every 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: “The additional and composite innovations, and adherence to them in absolute acts of worship, are a matter of jurisprudential disagreement in which each has his own opinion, and there is no harm in specifying 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, 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 that when they disagree—and disagreement is inevitable among them—this disagreement does not lead them to hatred, distance, enmity, 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 in their generation, and they are the best of people after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his brothers among the earlier prophets. So I say that these Companions disagreed on 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 favor from the Companions. When these people disagreed on some jurisprudential matters, they did not become enemies with one another. For example, some of them adhered to the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifah and said that the flow of blood invalidates the ablution, while others adhered to the opinion of Imam al-Shafi'i and said that touching a woman invalidates the ablution, and so on. But did the matter reach the point where the one who believes, through his independent legal reasoning, that the flow of blood invalidates the ablution refuses to pray behind his Companion brother who performed ablution and then blood flowed from him without renewing 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 that this disagreement is a natural and innate necessity. However, this disagreement should not be a cause for conflict and schism, including 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 differs from another opinion, provided he does not contradict a text with his opinion, as the later scholars and those who follow without knowledge do today. This is a criterion that is necessary before directly answering the question.