Shaykh Ibn Bāz (رحمه الله) was asked:[1]
If I see someone invoking the (dead) in the grave, seeking rescue from him, then he has been afflicted with shirk, shall I call him (to the truth) on the basis that he is a Muslim or shall I call him on the basis that he is a Mushrik if I wanted to call him to Allāh, the Mighty and Majestic, and explain to him?
He (رحمه الله) replied:
Call him through another expression, neither this (that he is Muslim) and neither that (that he is a Mushrik), say to him, "O So and so, servant of Allaah, this action of yours which you have done is shirk, it is not [accepted] worship, it is the action of the ignorant mushriks, the action of the Quraysh and the likes of Quraysh", because there is a barrier to the takfir of such a one and (takfir of him) would cause to him to flee (from the truth) when you call him. And also because making takfir of an individual is (a matter) other than the action which is shirk, the action is shirk, but the one who performs it does not become a Mushrik because there could a barrier to his takfīr, his ignorance, or his lack of insight in the definition of the scholars. And also in calling through the label of shirk (calling him a Mushrik) is turning him away, so you call him by his name, then you explain to him that this action is shirk.
And in response to the follow up question, "What is the stronger view regarding takfīr of a specific person?" the Shaykh (رحمه الله) explained:
When the evidences and proof are established against him which indicate his kufr (to him), and the path has been made clear to him and he persists, then he is a disbeliever. However, some of the scholars hold that whoever falls into some of the affairs of shirk and he may be confused or may be ignorant and does not know the reality, then they do not make takfīr of him until it is explained to him and guides him to (the realization) that this is disbelief and misguidance, and that this is the action of the first mushriks. And if he persists after the clarification, he is judged to be a disbeliever (through this disbelief).[2]
Imām Ibn Bāz does have other statements that suggest the absence of the excuse of ignorance because the Qurʾān has been conveyed and the proof is established and the affairs of Tawḥid are known and manifest. However, these differences can be explained by the fact that different sets of people have different circumstances and the same scholar might grant the excuse of ignorance to a person, but not to another, depending on the situation and context, and because what is known from the religion by necessity (al-maʿlūm min al-dīn bil-ḍurūrah) varies from time to time and place to place and even person to person in similar circumstances.
Footnotes
1. Al-Fawāʾid al-ʿIlmiyyah min al-Durūs al-Bāziyyah (2/273-274).2. For example, an expat worker may spend years in a Muslim country where Tawhid is manifest, however, he may never speak the language of that country (Arabic) and never be informed that what he does in his own land, of soliciting aid from the dead and the likes, is shirk that invalidates his Islām.
