Did Ibn Taymiyyah mean in his fatwa, regarding the non-repetition of an act of prayer or fasting for one who nullified it unknowingly, ignorance of the ruling itself or ignorance of what entails therefrom, such as the invalidation of the act of worship or the obligation of ghusl, and is he required to make up for it in the latter case?

Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said that an address is not established until after its conveyance (al-balagh), citing as evidence the Almighty’s saying: "And We would not punish until We had sent a messenger" (Quran 17:15), and His saying: "Lest people should have a Hujjah (proof or argument) against Allah after the Messengers" (Quran 4:165). Thus, whoever has not been conveyed a ruling will not be punished for it. As for one who knows of the prohibition of an action but is ignorant of the consequences that result from it, such as disbelief or corruption, then he is not excused. This is like someone who mocked Allah and His verses; he has disbelieved, even though he knew of the prohibition of mockery. Knowledge of the transgression is sufficient to establish the prescribed punishment (Hadd) or to rule that fasting is invalid. So, whoever engages in sexual intercourse during the daytime in Ramadan (definition), knowing it is prohibited, his fast is invalidated and he is obligated to offer expiation, even if he was ignorant of the obligation of expiation. And the married fornicator who knows of the prohibition is to be stoned, even if he is ignorant of the consequences that result from fornication.