Is it permissible to adopt the view of Ibn Taymiyyah regarding excusal by ignorance, and is that considered following the concessions of scholars?

All scholars excuse ignorance, but they differ in their application of this principle and in the specific issues where ignorance is excused. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah held that a person whose faith is established with certainty does not lose it unless the proof (hujjah) has been established against them and the ambiguity (shubahah) has been removed. He also stated that a specific individual is not declared a disbeliever unless a proof has been established against them, the contravention of which constitutes disbelief. Furthermore, a statement itself might be disbelief, but not everyone who utters it while ignorant or with an erroneous interpretation is considered a disbeliever.

In practical matters, Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that obligation (taklif) is conditional upon the ability to know and the capacity to act. Whoever is unable to do either is relieved of what incapacitates them. Thus, one who is unaware of the obligation of something, like prayer, is not required to make it up. He supported this with examples from the Prophetic Sunnah, such as the Prophet (peace be upon him) not ordering those who ate until the white thread became clear from the black thread to repeat their fast, or those who prayed towards other than the Kaaba before knowing about the abrogating verse, to repeat their prayers.