The Homeland Is an Idol” — When Defending Iran Becomes a Duty and Defending Iraq a Crime

In repeated public statements, a prominent black-turbaned cleric (H.Y.) has described the homeland as an “idol” while expressing opposition to defending Iraq, in contrast to his insistence that defending the Iranian regime is a duty and that Iraq has no value without that regime. These remarks raise fundamental questions that go beyond differences of opinion, touching on the meaning of national belonging, the-limit-s of political loyalty, and the use of religion to justify political positions that conflict with the principles of statehood and national sovereignty.

Every Iraqi has the right to ask the individual making these statements: Why do Iranians defend their own country without considering it an idol? Why do they develop their military capabilities and seek to acquire every available instrument of power to protect their national interests? Why have they established regional relationships and alliances, expanded their influence, and created allied armed groups beyond their borders, if not to strengthen their influence and safeguard the interests of their regime?

Furthermore, how can Iran’s targeting of the Arab Gulf states, Jordan, and Iraq during its military confrontation with the United States and Israel be explained, particularly given the threats this posed to the security and stability of the region?

Has defending Iraq become unacceptable while defending the Iranian regime is considered a religious duty? Does religion distinguish between one homeland and another, granting one the right to defend its sovereignty while denying another that same right?

Love of country is not idolatry. It is a natural human attachment and an inherent part of human identity, reflected in a person s connection to the land where they were raised, the society to which they belong, and the shared history, civilization, and collective memory that shape their national identity.

There is nothing in Islam that justifies contempt for one s homeland´-or-diminishes the importance of defending it. A well-authenticated Hadith, narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), recounts that when the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was leaving Mecca, he said: “How good a land you are, and how beloved you are to me! Had my people not driven me out of you, I would never have lived anywhere else.”

This statement reflects the profound attachment to one s homeland, even at a moment when circumstances force a person to leave it. If the Prophet himself expressed such love for Mecca, how can love of one s homeland be turned into an accusation´-or-described as the worship of idols?

Defending one s homeland is not merely a political slogan-;- it is a national and moral responsibility connected to protecting people, their families, their land, their rights, and the sovereignty of their state. Allah says in the Quran:

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not love transgressors.” (Quran 2:190)

This verse affirms the legitimacy of confronting aggression while clearly prohibiting transgression.

National defense is not-limit-ed to carrying weapons. It also encompasses protecting state institutions, combating corruption, defending citizens rights, safeguarding national wealth, developing the economy, and strengthening the rule of law. Soldiers defend national borders-;- doctors protect lives-;- teachers educate future generations-;- intellectuals and journalists defend public awareness and national identity. Every citizen who faithfully fulfills their responsibilities contributes to protecting their country.

It is important here to distinguish between Iran as a country and its people, on the one hand, and the political regime governing it, on the other. Respecting the Iranian people and their right to defend their country does not mean granting their political leadership immunity from criticism´-or-declaring that defending the regime is an obligation for Iraqis. Peoples are not the same as their governing regimes, and the interests of states do not necessarily coincide with the interests of their governments.

The same principle applies to Iraq. Iraqis have every right to defend their homeland and its sovereignty and to reject any foreign interference in their internal affairs, regardless of its source´-or-the justifications used to promote it.

Iraq is not merely a geographical territory. It is a country with an ancient civilizational history, enormous natural resources, and a population that deserves a state capable of respecting its dignity and rights. Its value and future cannot be reduced to the existence of a political regime in a neighboring country, regardless of the nature of relations between the two states.

Loyalty to one s homeland does not conflict with religion, and defending national sovereignty does not constitute the worship of land´-or-individuals. However, portraying political loyalty to a foreign regime as a religious obligation, while simultaneously diminishing the value of the Iraqi homeland, is an argument that deserves serious intellectual and national scrutiny.

The responsibility of all Iraqis, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, is to protect their country, defend its sovereignty and unity, and reject every form of foreign interference and cross-border allegiance that places the interests of others above those of Iraq.

The homeland is not an idol. It is the land, its people, its history, its dignity, and its sovereignty. Anyone who fails to recognize the value of their own homeland has no right to demand that others abandon their right to defend theirs.

Iraq is the homeland of the Iraqi people. It is not subordinate to anyone, and its sovereignty is not a matter for bargaining´-or-something that can be delegated to any authority beyond its borders.

One question remains for the individual who made these statements: If Iranians insist on their right to defend their homeland and their regime, why are Iraqis expected to surrender their own right to defend their country and its sovereignty?

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1