What is the ruling on going to graves to supplicate to their occupants?

The questioner : The questioner says: What is the ruling on one who goes to graves and supplicates to them?

The Shaykh : What is the ruling, not the dream?

The questioner : The ruling is written for him.

The Shaykh : Or what is the ruling?

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : Huh? We do not know. What is the questioner saying? Where is the questioner?

The questioner : Yes. If one goes to graves and supplicates to them other than Allah, out of ignorance of the ruling, is he excused for that?

The Shaykh : Be careful, do not drop out of the reading.

The questioner : Shaykh, the same way.

The Shaykh : Yes. If one goes to graves and supplicates to them in a community that does this, and he lived among them and did not know anything about it, and nothing was explained to him regarding it, then we look at whether he belongs to Islam or to disbelief. If he belongs to disbelief, he is a disbeliever.
And we treat him in this world as a disbeliever. But if he belongs to Islam, and he thinks this is part of Islam because he was not warned about it, and his shaykhs and scholars did not tell him that this is shirk (associating partners with Allah), and he thinks this is a means of nearness, then he is not declared a disbeliever outwardly. This means we treat him as a Muslim, because he is a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and he does not know that this is shirk, and he was not warned about it, and he did not understand it. So we say he is not declared a disbeliever, not outwardly regarding this world, because we only judge by what is apparent. As for the Hereafter, his affair is with Allah (Mighty and Majestic). As for the one who was informed and told that this is shirk and that it takes one out of Islam, and he said , then he is a disbeliever, because his disbelief is disbelief of obstinacy, since the truth was made clear to him but he persisted in it. If someone says, perhaps he did not trust the one who told him that this is shirk.
And this can happen. The common person, the common person, has people with big turbans, wide sleeves, long beards, yes, who tell him there is nothing wrong with this, that this is a righteous man, a wali (close friend of Allah) among the awliya (close friends of Allah), go and supplicate to him, it will benefit you. So, do we say he is excused? Answer, everyone.
This happens, my brothers, now. Your scholars here in the country say one thing, and the scholars of other countries say another. Who do you trust? The scholars of the country or others? The scholars of the country. This is an ignorant common person who has bad scholars, may Allah protect us, who make this thing attractive to him and make it easy for him, and he says, "I have a great scholar who said there is nothing wrong with it." The problem is that this is truly a problem. We say this common person, when he was told that this is shirk, what was he required to do? He was required to investigate and ask, not to persist in shirk. Because if he persists in shirk and says, "I cannot change because I found my fathers and grandfathers doing it," he becomes like those about whom Allah narrated that they said . Allah the Exalted said . In the end, .
So it is obligatory for this person, when it is conveyed to him that this is shirk, to investigate. If he is not reassured by the one who ruled that this is shirk, he investigates. But to persist in what was said to be shirk, he is not excused for that, because he is negligent. Yes.