Is the saying "Were it not for the duck in the house, the thieves would have come" considered polytheism (shirk), and is what is forbidden the word "were it not for" (lawla) or something else?

This statement is attributed to Ibn Abbas, and the Sheikh did not deem it shirk (polytheism) merely because of the presence of "if" (لو), but rather because it encompasses minor shirk. Among minor shirk is a person saying: "Whatever Allah wills and so-and-so wills," or "Were it not for Allah and so-and-so," or "This is from Allah and from so-and-so," as stated in the hadith: "Do not say: 'Whatever Allah wills and so-and-so wills,' but rather say: 'Whatever Allah wills, then so-and-so wills.'" This also includes what Ibn Abbas mentioned in the interpretation of the verse: {So do not set up rivals unto Allah while you know [that He alone has the right to be worshipped]} (2:22). He said: "It is shirk in this Ummah (Muslim nation) more subtle than the creeping of an ant on a black stone in the darkness of the night, and that is when you say: 'By Allah and by your life, O so-and-so, and by my life,' and you say: 'Were it not for this little dog, the thieves would have come to us,' and 'Were it not for the ducks in the house, the thieves would have come,' and a man's saying: 'Whatever Allah wills and you will,' and saying: 'Were it not for Allah and so-and-so,' do not include so-and-so in it. All of this contains shirk." The reason it is considered minor shirk is the attribution of the cause to other than its Creator, while forgetting the ultimate Causer, who is Allah. A person's heart may fall into some shirk by relying on the cause without considering the ultimate Causer, Allah Almighty.