An example of verbal shirk (associating partners with Allah) in which many preachers fall, namely saying "In the name of Allah and the homeland," with an explanation of some weak hadiths on the topic of the homeland

The Shaykh : 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 by opening gatherings and lectures with "In the name of Allah and the homeland." 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) rejected 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 obedience to him as obedience to Allah—and even so he said to him, "Have you made me equal to Allah?" How then 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 under the hands of others tomorrow, to our great regret. Therefore, it is not permissible for a person to say "In the name of Allah and the homeland," but rather "In the name of Allah alone." Let no one think that the meaning of this statement is that it is not necessary—I do not say to sanctify the homeland—but 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, that 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 reject himself, because that Companion had 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 speech and expression between the two wills, so you say "What Allah wills" and then "What so-and-so wills." Likewise, we say that if it is not permissible, as we mentioned to you, for a 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). If the Messenger of Allah did not wish and did not want his will to be mentioned together with the will of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), then it is even more so and more fitting 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). On this occasion, I want to remind you that the hadith "Love of the homeland is part of faith" 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 then 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 case is milder than 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 of the cat is part of faith." There are two hadiths of the same weight: "Love of the homeland is part of faith" and "Love of the cat is part of faith".

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, it is not in love. "Cleanliness is part of faith" "Cleanliness is part of faith" is a hadith that is also famous, but it is weak in its chain, and it is not like its predecessors. The two predecessors have no basis. And I also want to mention, on the occasion of "Love of the homeland is part of faith" and our saying that it has no basis, that this does not mean that love for the homeland is not obligatory for a person. There is a difference between love for the homeland being an instinctive, innate, natural thing in humans, in all of humanity, with no difference between a believer and a disbeliever; that is one thing. And another thing is for the hadith or the Messenger to come and say about this instinctive, innate thing in all humans that it is part of faith. So, is it part of the faith of the Germans that they defended their country until they destroyed it with their own hands? Is that part of 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 it is the nature of humans 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. There is no difference in that. Rather, to our great regret, we see many disbelievers surpass 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 of a certain type, 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 seeks 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 overlooking it and addressed it, saying (peace and blessings be upon him) But we cannot equate the sacred Makkah with any other town on the face of the earth. For Makkah is a sanctuary that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has sanctified, and a sacred land that He has made sacred. It is 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 from what Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has chosen from the best of lands. The point is that verbal shirk (associating partners with Allah) has many forms. So the Muslim should 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, some of them saying to others, on the slightest occasion, "I have no one but Allah and you." This itself is "What Allah wills and what you will." Rather, it is worse: "I have no one but Allah and you" ... "The hand of Allah and your hand" "I have relied on Allah and on you" All of this is shirk (associating partners with Allah). If the intention is as we indicated, from some of the ignorant, it is major shirk (associating partners with Allah), shirk of the heart. And if he does not intend it, as is the case with most people, it is verbal shirk (associating partners with Allah). But.