There are groups in Australia that take the names of cities, such as the Beirut Association or the Tripoli Association, and they show fanaticism toward the city or village they are named after.

The questioner : There are many Islamic and non-Islamic associations in Australia, meaning their names are not Islamic; rather, they are named after the city, for example, the Tripoli Association, the Beirut Association, and the like, or the village they claim affiliation with. However, those in charge of them are from the people of the Sunnah, following the tradition of their fathers and grandfathers. Most of them are dominated by ignorance, religious innovation, or fanaticism toward their city or village. What advice do you give us regarding how to deal with them?

The Shaykh : I do not think there is anything new for me to offer here in this question, after the previous discussion regarding the answers to the two questions mentioned.
As long as these people are ignorant, they must be taught, and one should be gentle in their case and in teaching them. There is no doubt that the affiliation of these associations, each to its own country or region, is most similar to the call of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance. These names for the associations should express the identity of the association in terms of its goal, its religion, its methodology, its plan, and the like. As for affiliation with a country, there is then no difference between a Muslim who claims it and a disbeliever who claims it. Therefore, we say that the title of the Muslim must always express his methodology. Also, recently, we touched upon a topic that I believe is important for our current situation, in that every Muslim should reveal his identity, sometimes in general terms and sometimes in detail. Detail requires some knowledge, whereas general terms do not require much knowledge.
We said recently, and we repeat this always and forever: if one of us is asked today, "What is your madhhab (school of jurisprudence)?" The answer, based on my experience with many of those who affiliate with us to the Book and the Sunnah, and who do not show fanaticism to a specific madhhab among the Islamic schools, whether related to beliefs or rulings, is: "What is your madhhab?" "Just a Muslim." I see that this answer is insufficient, most similar to those associations that affiliate with a country, region, person, or group, and the like. Why is it not sufficient? Because we are now living amidst many, and very many, Islamic groups, and they all say: "We are Muslims and upon the Book and the Sunnah," so that no one enters this category whom we are certain is in clear misguidance, unless we are certain he is among the disbelievers or those who associate partners with Allah. He calls himself a Muslim, like the Alawites, for example, and the Ismailis, and the like, let alone those whom we cannot exclude from the circle of Islam, such as the Maturidiyyah, the Asha'irah, the Hanafis, the Malikis, and the like. Even though these people show more fanaticism to their schools than the Muslim shows to the Book and the Sunnah. Therefore, it is not sufficient today for the Muslim, when asked "What is your madhhab?", to say only: "My madhhab is Salafi," because by doing so you distinguish yourself and your methodology from the rest of the Muslims. If you say you are a Muslim, more than one question will be directed at you. If the question is "What is your madhhab?" and you say "Muslim," then: "Muslims are divided into many, and very many, schools, so what is your school?" If you insist and say you are a Muslim, it means you have turned your backs. If you are explicit, then you must be explicit about what your belief is. What is your belief regarding the call to the Book and the Sunnah and upon the methodology of the pious predecessors? Many Islamic callers today refuse this burden to us, saying: "The Book and the Sunnah are sufficient for us." The reality is that it is not sufficient, and the evidence for this is explained in many recordings. There is no room now for elaboration, especially since we explained it recently with some clear and evident explanation.