“Clean Hands, Not More Blood”: Sheikh Gumi Sparks Nationwide Debate After Condemning Alleged U.S. Airstrike in Sokoto

Controversial Islamic cleric and public commentator, Dr. Ahmad Abubakar Mahmud Gumi, has ignited intense national debate following his strong condemnation of an alleged United States airstrike in Sokoto State, warning that Nigeria risks turning itself into a global battleground by allowing foreign military powers to operate on its soil. In a lengthy and emotionally charged statement shared publicly, Sheikh Gumi argued that while eliminating terrorist groups is both a moral and religious obligation, such actions must be carried out “with clean hands,” not by forces he accused of having a long history of violence against civilians in other parts of the world.

Reacting to reports of U.S. military involvement in counterterrorism operations within Nigeria, the cleric questioned both the symbolism and the broader implications of such strikes, especially in a region like Sokoto which he described as predominantly Muslim and not at the epicenter of Nigeria’s terrorism crisis. According to Gumi, the decision to allow foreign airstrikes reflects a deeper strategic error that could have lasting consequences for national unity, sovereignty, and security.

Sheikh Gumi acknowledged that combating terrorism is a duty recognized in Islamic teachings, citing prophetic traditions that condemn violent extremism and disorder. However, he stressed that the legitimacy of such a fight depends on who is carrying it out and for what purpose. In his words, terrorism cannot be defeated by what he described as “another terrorist,” arguing that global powers with records of civilian casualties lack the moral authority to claim the role of liberators or protectors in Nigeria’s complex security landscape.

His remarks quickly drew attention online, with supporters applauding his boldness and critics accusing him of politicizing national security. Still, the cleric insisted that Nigeria’s mistake lies in outsourcing its security challenges to external actors who, in his view, do not genuinely seek peace but rather pursue hidden geopolitical interests. He warned that foreign forces often claim to fight terrorism while ordinary civilians bear the cost, and that such interventions rarely address the root causes of violence.

Central to Gumi’s argument is the belief that no sovereign nation should allow its territory to become a theater of war or permit its neighbors and allies to dictate its security agenda. He cautioned that the involvement of the United States, particularly under narratives framed around religious protection, could deepen existing divisions in Nigeria’s already fragile social fabric. According to him, framing military action as a move to “protect Christians” risks inflaming religious tensions, polarizing communities, and undermining decades of coexistence.

The cleric further warned that U.S. military presence could attract hostile foreign groups with anti-American agendas, thereby escalating violence and transforming Nigeria into a proxy battlefield for global conflicts. He argued that rather than reducing insecurity, such involvement may worsen it, exposing civilians to greater danger and drawing international rivalries into local struggles.

In place of American military assistance, Sheikh Gumi suggested that Nigeria should seek support from countries he described as more neutral in global conflicts, including China, Turkey, and Pakistan. He claimed these nations could offer technical and strategic support without imposing ideological or imperial ambitions. More importantly, he emphasized that Nigeria already possesses sufficient manpower to confront terrorism if there is genuine political will, proper coordination, and accountability within the armed forces.

Gumi was particularly dismissive of airstrikes as a solution to terrorism, describing them as largely symbolic gestures that fail to dismantle militant networks. According to him, sporadic bombings do little more than create headlines while leaving communities traumatized and grievances unresolved. He argued that effective counterterrorism requires sustained, intelligence-driven operations on the ground, combined with efforts to address poverty, injustice, and local grievances that fuel extremism.

Another aspect of his statement that stirred controversy was his call for transparency and citizen documentation. He urged communities affected by military operations to share videos and photographs of any casualties, a move he said would promote accountability and prevent the silencing of innocent victims. While some viewed this as a push for human rights monitoring, others expressed concern about misinformation and the potential misuse of such content.

Perhaps the most provocative part of Sheikh Gumi’s message was his interpretation of the timing and location of the alleged strike. He described the attack as symbolic and deeply troubling, noting that it reportedly occurred around Christmas Eve and in a region not widely regarded as the stronghold of terrorist activity. To him, this raised questions about intent and narrative, particularly against the backdrop of global religious tensions. He warned that such actions could be perceived as part of a broader ideological campaign against Islam, a claim that has further fueled online debate.

Gumi concluded by asserting that terrorism in Nigeria is not merely a security failure but a manufactured and sustained problem, enabled by powerful interests that benefit from perpetual instability. He cautioned Nigerians against being “played with,” emphasizing that the issue of foreign military involvement is likely to feature prominently in political discourse ahead of the 2027 general elections.

As of the time of writing, Nigerian authorities have not issued a detailed public response addressing the cleric’s claims or clarifying the extent of U.S. military involvement in Sokoto. The United States has also not officially confirmed the alleged strike. Nonetheless, Sheikh Gumi’s remarks have reopened long-standing questions about sovereignty, foreign intervention, and the true cost of the war against terrorism.

What is clear is that the statement has struck a nerve across the country, resonating with a population weary of insecurity and skeptical of solutions that appear to recycle old strategies. Whether one agrees with Sheikh Gumi or not, his message has once again forced Nigeria to confront a difficult question: can peace be imported by force, or must it be built from within, with accountability, unity, and what he calls “clean hands”?