What is the ruling on falling into acts of shirk (associating partners with Allah) out of ignorance?

Question : He says: Some people who claim to be Muslim in many countries fall into some acts of shirk (associating partners with Allah) out of ignorance, directing some acts of worship to other than Allah (Mighty and Majestic), knowing that there is no one to warn them or teach them this, and they think themselves to be upon Islam and the truth. What is their ruling? Is it permissible to pray behind them and eat their slaughtered animals? May Allah bless you.

Answer : I think no one is ignorant that slaughtering for other than Allah is shirk (associating partners with Allah), and that calling for aid from the dead is shirk (associating partners with Allah). I do not think this is hidden from anyone. But if we suppose that it was hidden from someone among the people, and no one warned him that it is shirk (associating partners with Allah), and he thought, based on the fact that people do it, that it does not contradict tawhid (the oneness of Allah), but he did not find anyone to warn him, then we may say that he is excused due to his ignorance, and we rule that he is a Muslim in appearance in this world. As for the Hereafter, his affair is with Allah (Mighty and Majestic).
As for if he finds someone to warn him, but he persists and says, "This is the saying of our scholars, this is the saying of our awliya (close friends of Allah), this is the saying of our imams," then he has no excuse. Because it is obligatory for him, if he is in doubt, to ask. I mean, he is a layman, our brothers, he is a layman. So if a scholar from another country comes to him and says, "This is shirk (associating partners with Allah) and haram (forbidden)," and the scholars of his country agree with him, does he obey this visiting scholar or not? The layman is a layman; he knows only his scholars. But in this case, he must search and not say .
So we say that he is negligent because he left what is obligatory upon him. Thus the categories are three. The first is that he is warned that this is shirk (associating partners with Allah) and it becomes clear to him that it is shirk (associating partners with Allah); then his ruling is that he is a mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah) and he has no excuse because he is defiant. The second is that no one warns him, and it is not on his mind except that this is among the permissible matters or among the prescribed matters; then he is excused considering his state in this world, but in the Hereafter, his affair is with Allah. The third is... The third.
That people warn them, that people warn them and say, "This is shirk (associating partners with Allah)," but he did not accept it based on his doubt about it being shirk (associating partners with Allah). Then he is not excused. Why? Because he left the obligation upon him to search for the truth.