Mustafa Al-Habashi similarly accuses Ahlus-Sunnah of irjaa' in Ethiopia and Yemen.

This approach is entirely different from that of Sheikh Ibn Baz and his methods, which starkly contrast with the path of these extremist individuals. Additionally, the label "grave-worshippers," used to incite fear and revulsion, is a misrepresentation. Grave-worshippers, who are not worshippers of Allāh, are not Muslims, as anyone who worships graves rather than Allāh cannot claim to be Muslim. However, scholars have discussed the specific case of a person who is pleased with Allāh as their Lord, Islam as a religion, Muḥammad as the Messenger, adheres to Allāh’s commands, upholds Tawheed, and rejects and disbelieves in Taghoot. Such a person, unaware that a certain act is shirk, might unknowingly engage in it. If they had known it was shirk, they would have abstained from it. It is this type that some scholars have ruled is Muslim and should not be labeled a disbeliever. The term "grave-worshippers," therefore, serves merely as an inflammatory label. The matter is not related to grave-worshippers. This issue revolves around a Muslim who acknowledges Islam, worships Allāh, believes in the Qur'an and follows its teachings, loves Allāh and His Messenger, prays, fasts, performs Hajj, engages in righteous acts, and remembers Allāh—potentially even dedicating their nights to prayer and their days to fasting—yet may not realize a particular action constitutes shirk. As was the case with many people from past eras of ignorance who were unaware that such acts were shirk. We hold that such individuals are excused and should not be considered mushrik, as ignorance is a recognized impediment to declaring someone a disbeliever or mushrik, just as forgetfulness, error, coercion, and misinterpretation are! As evidenced by many sources, as well as the statements of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, ignorance serves as a barrier to declaring disbelief. In some of his fatwas, may Allāh have mercy on him, he stated that anyone who would label such actions as shirk might also label certain actions of the Companions as shirk. Weren't there among the Companions those who swore by their fathers? Didn’t Umar, for example, swear by his father? The hadith in the Saheehain. Is swearing by anyone other than Allāh considered shirk? Did not some Companions swear by the Ka'bah and say, “What Allāh and Muhammad will” until the Prophet, peace be upon him, corrected them? This was evident from the narration of Tufail ibn Sakhbarah when he had a dream: "Indeed, you are committing shirk; indeed, you are associating others with Allāh, as you say ‘by the Ka'bah’ and ‘by Muhammad.'" And didn’t Mu'adh prostrate to the Prophet ﷺ upon his return from Syria, falling down in prostration before him? Didn’t some Companions, may Allāh be pleased with them, request from the Prophet to dedicate a tree for them as a form of sanctification, as Banu Isra'eel once asked Musa to make for them an idol? Do we consider them mushriks? Do we label them as such? No, we do not call them mushriks, for they did these acts without knowing they were shirk. They swore by their fathers or by the Ka'bah, said "What Allāh and Muhammad will," prostrated to the Prophet, and made that request, all before they knew these actions constituted shirk. Once the Prophet ﷺ explained the matter to them, they abandoned such practices. Umar himself, when the Prophet clarified the matter to him, swore, “By Allāh, I have not sworn by anything other than Allāh thereafter, whether deliberately or unintentionally.” Similarly, as Imam An-Najdi, may Allāh have mercy on him, noted: "Those who claim we should call these people mushriks would then also apply that label to some of the Companions." This is evil. So, may Allāh bless you; this is our stance and what we caution against: the act of labeling those who excuse based on ignorance with innovation and irjaa'. This is the attitude we reject.