Sheikh Gumi warns US. Stop your airstrikes in Nigeria now.

In recent days, a major controversy has erupted in Nigeria’s public discourse. Islamic scholar Sheikh Ahmad Gumi has issued a powerful warning to the United States, urging the foreign power to stop its airstrikes in Nigeria now. This call has stirred debate among Nigerians at home and abroad, especially as the country continues to confront terrorism, insecurity, and foreign military involvement in its territory.

Importantly, this article explores Gumi’s warning in-depth. It breaks down the message, the context, the implications, and the reactions from various stakeholders. Along the way, we’ll provide internal links to related coverage and authoritative outbound links to respected reporting on the topic. Most importantly, we’ll preserve clarity, offer transitions, and explain why Gumi’s statement matters in Nigeria’s ongoing security dilemma. Read also Explosion Rocks Mosque in Borno Market; Worshippers Died

The Genesis of the Warning

To understand why Sheikh Gumi issued this warning, one must grasp the recent U.S. military action in Nigeria. On December 25, 2025, the United States launched airstrikes against suspected ISIS-affiliated militant camps in northwest Nigeria’s Sokoto State. The operation was carried out with Nigerian cooperation, including shared intelligence and authorization from the Nigerian federal government. (Reuters)

According to coverage by Reuters, Tomahawk cruise missiles and drone strikes targeted compounds linked to militants who the U.S. said were planning attacks. Although Nigeria insisted the strikes were meant to support counterterrorism efforts, they have triggered deep controversy. (Reuters)

This air campaign was framed in some American commentary as an effort to curb violence against Christians in Nigeria — a narrative that Nigerian officials have disputed, emphasizing that both Christians and Muslims suffer at the hands of violent extremist groups. (The Guardian)

Yet, despite that cooperation, Sheikh Gumi took a firm stance, calling on the United States to halt airstrikes now and warning against further involvement. His message, though rooted in current events, reflects larger concerns about sovereignty and security. Have you heard about this information? Read “Turning Against Herdsmen Will Divide Us” — Gumi Warns Nigerians

What Sheikh Gumi Actually Said

In a statement shared on his Facebook page and widely reported in Nigerian media, Sheikh Gumi expressed strong opposition to the U.S. strikes and warned that continued foreign military involvement will make Nigeria a theatre of war, rather than help solve its security challenges. (BusinessDay)

Moral and Sovereignty Concerns: Gumi stated that allowing foreign forces to bomb Nigerian soil undermines national sovereignty and risks increasing anti‑U.S. sentiment. (BusinessDay)
Effectiveness of Airstrikes: He questioned the strategic value of aerial bombardment, arguing that dropping bombs “here and there” won’t end terrorism and that real solutions require sustained ground efforts. (BusinessDay)
Religious and Political Risks: According to the cleric, framing the strikes under the banner of protecting Christians could polarize the nation along religious lines. (Trust Radio)
Alternative Military Partnerships: Gumi suggested Nigeria should seek assistance from countries he describes as “neutral” — such as China, Turkey, or Pakistan. (BusinessDay)

Why Gumi Is Concerned About Airstrikes in Nigeria

To many analysts, Gumi’s statement reflects deep-rooted skepticism about foreign military involvement in domestic security affairs. Since the early 2000s, Nigeria has faced extremist threats like Boko Haram and ISIS‑linked groups, and responses have at times involved external help. But when foreign airstrikes occur, especially without broad national consensus, questions of legitimacy and impact arise.

Sheikh Gumi’s warning highlights three core concerns: before that, have you read about this story? The True Origin of Christmas: History, Myths, and Meaning Explained.

1. Sovereignty and National Autonomy

Gumi asserts that allowing U.S. forces to strike inside Nigeria detracts from Nigeria’s ability to govern its own security. In his view, such military involvement could become a political bargaining chip, or worse, lead to prolonged foreign presence under the guise of cooperation. (The Eagle Online)

2. Risk of Escalation

Instead of reducing violence, Gumi argues, foreign bombings could escalate conflict. He believes that when external actors engage militarily, they may provoke stronger reactions from militants and sympathizers, thereby attracting anti‑U.S. forces to operate within Nigeria. (The Star)

3. Potential Religious Polarization

Although Nigeria’s security issues cut across religious lines, many Nigerians fear that framing foreign military action as protecting one group could worsen rifts. Gumi’s warning explicitly mentions that the U.S.’s rationale — protecting Christians — may deepen divides. (BusinessDay)

Reactions from Nigerian Leaders and Citizens

The response to Gumi’s warning has been mixed. Some leaders, like Senator Aminu Tambuwal, have expressed cautious support for Nigeria being careful in how it engages with foreign militaries, though with less dramatic rhetoric than Gumi’s. Tambuwal highlighted that counterterrorism efforts must avoid blind reliance on external powers while ensuring Nigerians’ safety. (This Day Live)

Others in the media and on social platforms have criticized Gumi’s stance, suggesting it could undermine efforts to tackle violent extremists effectively. One common online critique argues that reducing foreign cooperation could hamper Nigeria’s ability to counter well‑armed militant groups. On the other hand, critics of U.S. foreign policy question the timing and motives behind the airstrikes. See public discussions on social media and forums. (Outbound link)

Historical Context: Foreign Military Involvement in Nigeria

Nigeria’s security challenges have long drawn international attention. For over a decade, foreign partners have cooperated with Nigeria in training, intelligence sharing, and logistics support against groups like Boko Haram and ISIS-linked insurgents. However, direct airstrikes by a foreign military are extremely rare, and this latest action by the United States marks a significant moment in bilateral defense cooperation. (Reuters)

That shift is central to why Gumi, along with other figures, has responded so strongly.

Security Effects: What We Know So Far

It’s important to note that official reports state the recent airstrikes targeted ISIS affiliates and were conducted with Nigeria’s approval. According to government statements, terrorist camps planning attacks were struck, and no civilian casualties were reported. (Reuters)

Nonetheless, in situations like these, the perception of foreign bombs in communities can be as impactful as their physical effects, particularly when communities feel vulnerable or disregarded.

Furthermore, at a strategic level, the debate continues over whether air superiority and precision strikes can effectively eliminate extremist networks without accompanying ground operations and sustainable political solutions. Hold on, it will not be fair enough if I didn’t show you this “Turning Against Herdsmen Will Divide Us” — Gumi Warns Nigerians

What This Means for Nigeria’s Future

Sheikh Gumi’s warning — to stop U.S. airstrikes in Nigeria now — resonates beyond the immediate military action. It symbolizes a broader tension between:

Nigeria’s need for security
The risks of foreign military involvement
The balancing of religious and national identities
Nigeria’s sovereignty in choosing its partners

As the country approaches future elections and continues to grapple with insecurity, voices like Gumi’s are likely to shape national conversations. For journalists, policymakers, and citizens alike, understanding these divergent perspectives is essential.

Whether one agrees with Gumi or not, his warning highlights a core dilemma of security policy in a sovereign nation: how to protect citizens without undermining national autonomy or provoking deeper conflict.