An example of verbal shirk (associating partners with Allah) in which many preachers fall; namely, their saying: "In the name of Allah and the homeland"

The Shaykh : And one type of verbal shirk (associating partners with Allah) that is common among preachers today, who do not care about the rulings of the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law), is mentioning the name of Allah alongside the homeland when opening gatherings and lectures; is this not a reality?! You all hear this. This is verbal shirk (associating partners with Allah); because if the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) disapproved of saying "What Allah wills and what you will" to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), whom Allah considered obedience to him as obedience to Allah, and considered obedience to him as obedience to Allah; despite that, he said to him: ; so how can the homeland be paired with the name of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He)?! And what is this homeland?! If only it were the general Islamic homeland that has no borders, but rather it is a piece of land that may be under our hands today and become under the hands of others tomorrow, with great regret. Therefore, it is not permissible for the one who speaks to say: "In the name of Allah and the homeland," but rather: "In the name of Allah alone."
And let no one think that the meaning of this statement is that it is not recommended, I do not say sanctifying the homeland; rather, I say: let no one think that the meaning of this statement is that it is not obligatory to care for the homeland and preserve it; no, this is not the intention. Just as when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said to that Companion: , he did not intend for Muhammad himself to deny himself; because that Companion paired Muhammad (peace be upon him) with his Lord. So when he was ordered to mention Allah alone in this phrase, you must distinguish in your wording and expression between the two wills, and say: "What Allah wills," then "What so-and-so wills."
Likewise, we say: if it is not permissible, as we mentioned to you, for the Muslim to say "In the name of Allah and the homeland"; that does not mean that the homeland has no value, and that the homeland should not be preserved; no, but the homeland is not of greater status than the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So if the Messenger of Allah did not wish or want his will to be mentioned together with the will of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); then it is even more so and more likely that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would not be pleased for us to mention the homeland and its status, as we mentioned, with the name of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He).
And on this occasion, I want to remind you that the hadith: is a hadith for which Allah has not sent down any authority. This hadith, in the expression of the people of hadith, has no basis; meaning: it has no chain of narration at all. Rather, some people mentioned it in some books, intentionally or by mistake, and the later generations inherited it from those before them without knowing the weight of this hadith in the eyes of the scholars of hadith. It spread on the tongues of people and became widespread until it became as if it were a mass-transmitted report among people. The truth of the matter is that it is like another hadith, but its status is milder than the status of the first; because it did not spread and become as widespread as the first hadith. Rather, it is known among the specialists like us, but it is known that it is also, like its predecessor, without a basis. It is "Love for the cat is from faith." So there are two hadiths of the same weight: , and .

The questioner : .

The Shaykh : No, it does not contain love. , This hadith is also famous, but it is weak in its chain of narration, and it is not like its predecessors; the previous two have no basis at all.
Likewise, I want to remind you, on the occasion of "Love for the homeland is from faith," and our saying that it has no basis; this does not mean that love for the homeland is not obligatory for the person. There is a difference between love for the homeland being an innate, natural, and instinctive thing in humans, in all of humanity, with no difference between a believer and a disbeliever; that is one thing. And between a hadith or the Messenger coming and saying about this innate, instinctive thing in all humans: "This is from faith." So is it from the faith of the Germans that they defended their country until they destroyed it with their own hands? Is this from faith?!
Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has indicated in a verse of the Qur'an that love for the homeland is like love for the self and love for life: ; why? Because the nature of humans is to be attached to life and attached to the homeland. So by the nature of man, he is attached to his homeland, whether he is a believer or a disbeliever. So love for the homeland is not a slogan by which the Muslim is distinguished from others, but he shares it with others; so there is no difference in that. Rather, with great regret, we see many disbelievers surpassing many Muslims in their love for their homelands. But the difference between the Muslim and the disbeliever in the instinctive love for the homeland is that the Muslim mixes his love for his homeland with a Muslim, believing creed. So he differs from the instinctive love for the homeland that disbelievers share; because he does not love the homeland for the sake of the homeland; because it is a piece of land like any other land—for example, its soil is red, or its land is green, or it has rivers flowing, and so on. Rather, he loves it for something else. He loves it as a means to spread the word of Allah on earth, and to make the word of Allah the highest and the word of those who disbelieve the lowest.
This is the difference between the love of the believer for his homeland and the love of the disbeliever for his homeland. So the Muslim loves the homeland, but when he sees that this homeland has become a calamity and a plague for him, he leaves it and searches for another land to take as his homeland. And when this reality, with its two sides, was indicated by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), he indicated one of them by his migration from Makkah to al-Madinah, and he indicated the other by his saying, when he migrated from it and stood on the mountain looking down at it, addressing it with his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): .
But we cannot equate the sacred Makkah with any other town on the face of the earth. Makkah is a sanctuary that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has sanctified, and a sacred land that He has made the best land of Allah on the face of the earth, absolutely. So if a person loves it for its own sake, he is not like the one who loves his homeland, any other homeland, because it is what Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has chosen over other lands.
The point is that verbal shirk (associating partners with Allah) has many, many forms. So the Muslim must not fall into any of them. And if he sees his Muslim brother has been afflicted with any of them, he should alert him and advise him. And this is a lot, and a very lot. You hear people today saying to each other on the slightest occasion: "I have no one but Allah and you." It is itself "What Allah wills and what you will." Rather, more severe, "I have no one but Allah and you." This is shirk (associating partners with Allah). "The hand of Allah and the hand of yours." "I relied on Allah and on you." All of this is shirk (associating partners with Allah). If he intended it, as some ignorant people have indicated, it is major shirk (associating partners with Allah), shirk of the heart. And if he did not intend it, as is the case with most people, it is verbal shirk (associating partners with Allah).