The Shaykh offered advice to the youth before they went to jihad.

The Shaykh : The important point is that whether you are in a state that is with disbelief or a state against disbelief, the answer is that you and he have already taken it from a stronger basis. And in my opinion, without blame, your question, in grammatical terms, has no place in the parsing, because you clearly remember that I said in the answer that neither he nor the Muslims who are truly Muslim from father to grandfather do we command them first to turn to seeking knowledge, and second, we do not command them to go there as individuals. So if you took the answer considering that you were from the states that did not ally with disbelief, even then we say: do not fight individually, because this has very great dangers, meaning that in the course of performing his duty, this individual would neglect his other duties. However, if he goes with the state with its preparations that correspond to the calamity existing there, then he can fight and the victory we desire for the Iraqi people can be realized, and not for the Iraqi regime, nor for the Ba'ath Party, nor for the person Saddam. Rather, it is obligatory for the Muslims to have a deep and very deep perspective, which is to look at what lies behind the outcome of the disbelievers' victory over the Iraqi people, and conversely, what lies behind the Iraqi people's victory over the disbelievers? The matter returns to the rule I mentioned earlier on the occasion of what I said, that if a Muslim is caught between two evils, he chooses the lesser of the two evils. Now, many Muslims imagine that supporting the disbelievers against the Iraqi people is less dangerous than supporting the Iraqi people against the disbelievers and their allies. That is not the case, especially after these disbelievers have shown their fangs and revealed their bad intentions, and that they want a new arrangement for the Middle East, meaning the redivision of the Arab Islamic lands under the guardianship and care of either the American state alone, or with some other powerful states like France and others. Recently, we heard from some radio stations that France is now thinking that it has a hand in the matter of entering the arrangement, meaning just as they divided the Levant into small states: the Jordanian state, the Syrian state, and the Lebanese state, they placed the British in the first and the French in the second, and so on. This same arrangement will be imposed now, God forbid, if the disbelievers win over the Iraqi people. We reverse the situation now, and this is undoubtedly a calamity, meaning no Muslim can accept it, even these states that got involved and sought the help of the disbeliever who is stronger than them, and no Muslim on the face of the earth would say this absolutely, because those who said it is permissible to seek the help of the disbeliever placed conditions on it. And that is why I told you earlier: do not quote my words absolutely; I placed a condition on it. This is also from the jurisprudence of the jurists when one of them said it is permissible to seek the help of the disbelievers, they said: if the power is with the Muslims and those being helped are under the control of the Muslims. But the current situation is completely the opposite of that. And that is why I said, and I still say, what will save the states now, or the Saudi state in particular, after the British and Americans occupied it, also by the choice of the Saudi government? If it wanted to resist with this state, no one could stop it, because I mean the Saudi government was not able to stand on its borders facing the borders of Iraq, and it knew in one way or another, including the suspicion that the Iraqi state would attack it, that it would not be able to stand against it, so it would be able to drive out the American state from its homeland and with its power. Therefore, we are now looking at one of two outcomes, and the sweeter of them is bitter, but what do we do? Do we choose the more bitter one or the less bitter one? This is how a Muslim must handle matters. Now, there is no doubt and no doubt that if the Americans win over the Iraqi people, the map of the Arab lands will change and all of it will be under the hand of the Jews and under their colonization, which is American colonization. As for the opposite, if we suppose that Iraq wins, and that is what we hope for over the Americans, and the Americans and the British with them return in disgrace, regret, defeat, and subjugation, what do we fear for the Arab Islamic states? What is feared is that the Ba'ath Party will spread in the Arab lands. This is feared, but which is more harmful to the Islamic peoples: that the lands become a Jewish colony, or that this Ba'athist party spreads in them, which cannot stand or have a foothold in all the Arab lands? This is from one aspect. From another aspect, and this is a point I hope you pay attention to: the disbelieving states represent their peoples, so their peoples are with them in fighting the Muslims. But the Ba'ath Party in Iraq does not represent the Iraqi people, just as the Ba'ath Party with us in Syria does not represent the Syrian people. And therefore, it should not be imagined that if Iraq wins and then extends its nose and tails to the other Arab lands, that means the Ba'ath Party will be the one to control, because the Ba'ath Party does not represent this people who were able to overcome all the disbelievers. No, this may be for a period of time, then it is necessary that any party, whether Ba'athist or Communist, be dealt with, and reality is the greatest proof. Unlike if the control were for these ruling disbelieving states, that would mean the disbelieving peoples are the ones who seized the Muslim lands. Unlike if the Iraqi people did not win over these disbelievers, that does not mean the Ba'ath Party will be the one to control, but rather it may control, then there is also something that must be observed: if Iraq wins, and that is what we hope for, so that its previous power returns to it, in my opinion, the Ba'ath Party will be dealt with before it returns to its previous power, because they are now, as you hear, and that does not mean that we believe everything we hear, whether from these or those, but rather it appears that there is something of the complete awakening that we used to hear before this fitnah that has reached some heads, either reluctantly or in submission and obedience. And the calamities have the benefit that they awaken the sleepers from their deep slumber. Perhaps I have spoken too much in this speech, but perhaps there is benefit in it, if Allah wills. Perhaps you can translate for him some of what you heard, even if briefly. In the name of Allah.