Is there another opinion regarding the disbelief of one who commits major disbelief while ignorant that his action constitutes disbelief, yet aware of the action's prohibition?

Scholars have differed on the issue of ignorance regarding an act being disbelief (kufr) despite knowing its prohibition. Ibn Taymiyyah holds that whoever commits an act of disbelief while knowing its prohibition but being ignorant of its being disbelief, thereby disbelieves. He emphasizes that ridiculing Allah, His verses, and His Messenger is an act of disbelief. Ibn Baz agreed with this view. However, Ibn Uthaymeen distinguished between one who is ignorant that an act is disbelief (for whom there is no excuse), and one who imitates a scholar who considers the act prohibited but not disbelief (in which case he does not disbelieve). There are also scholars who do not excuse ignorance in matters of the fundamentals of religion (usul al-din) and issues of disbelief, such as the Fatawa Hindiyyah in the Hanafi school. Nevertheless, the correct opinion is that ignorance is excused in the fundamentals of religion and its branches. This is the view of the predecessors of the Ummah and its imams, as mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah, who affirmed that a mistaken mujtahid is forgiven for his error, whether in theoretical or practical matters.