The article titled 'Suicide Bombers And Martyrdom' by Adebisi I. Obafemi published on Gamji, though imbalance and inaccurate, provides a good reading and an interesting contribution on the broad issue of suicide bombing and martyrdom particularly since it is entirely devoted to the act and belief as practiced and held by some Muslims. I consider the article to be imbalance for various reasons which cannot be excused or justified by the writer's possible background as a non-Muslim. This is true because when we go out of our way to place our thoughts and ideas in the public place especially when those ideas and thoughts have the tendency to affect the ways and manners in which people on whom they are formed will be perceived, understood and treated, we owe it to good conscience and public good to do justice to the issue by exerting ourselves to obtain accurate information and present them in fair and balanced manner. This article is lacking in these rudiments.

Many articles have already been written across the world to attempt to discuss or explain in a comprehensive way the indices of the specific past criminal incidents of London (attempted) bombings that a repeat of that effort here is unwarranted. However, the concern I have with the way this issue is presented in the article is the detectable and subtle tendency of the writer to stand the facts on their head. To know the reasons why the depraved people who carried out the London attacks and others like them who have adopted militant way of life and killed innocent civilians across the world have got for their actions, we only need to listen to them as they are generous enough to always provide this information; either as the Osamas or Bushes of this world! I'm not sure that any of these people has come out openly to declare that they 'are taught to believe that dying as a Martyr is the fastest route to getting to heaven and having the luxury of tens of virgins girls at their disposal in heaven for sexual pleasure'. An attempt to suggest that as in the article is not only Islamophobic and offensive but also a repeat of the over-used and well-rehearsed line commonly adopted by the hostile media and the orientalists to disparage Islam and Muslims. The concept of martyrdom in Islam is a valid and well-established concept that is not difficult to understand or rationalize. I'm sorry that the writer feels sickened by the fact some 'religious scholars and teachers trying albeit unintelligently to explain the rationale behind the abundant supply of would be suicide bombers'. But this is perfectly normal, isn't it. Why is it perfectly acceptable to listen to endless explanations of and expert analyses on the psychology of pedophiles, serial killers or even rapists? Writing or speaking on these subjects is perfectly normal both at the time and after occurrence of incident and it is not considered abhorring or encouraging perversion to do so. Why is explaining the possible motivations of the suicide bombing sickening? Is it just sickening to read or hear that the bombers can be motivated by acts of terrorism going on in other parts of the world with which they have connection- however unjustifiable their actions are considered. The writer only needs to o pen his/her mind and read a few books written by Muslim experts on the topic of martyrdom, not the Cambridge English dictionary, to gain an insight into the Islamic perspective and get a good understanding of Muslim views in order to free his/her mind from bigotry, sentiment and bias. Surely, it will be inaccurate to suggest here that the concept of martyrdom is not open to abuse from within by perverts who can use it as a possible attraction to recruit naive and marginalized persons for their nefarious terrorist campaigns, as is the case for most matters in all faiths. But so also are some people capable of being motivated by ordinary pop or rap songs to commit such grotesque acts as people across the whole spectrum of the society have in some way been involved or connected with these incidents. All we need to remember to make the clear distinction is that terrorists of all categ ories and creeds (state, individual, religious, secular etc) have never specifically cited the notion of the sexual exploit as their reason.  

The gloom fact of the world we live in today is that the people labeled as extremists and terrorists are not more recruited by the so-called anti-Western Mullahs calling to Jihad in abstruse madrasa in Pakistan or in Nigeria; promising the cited sexual pleasure, than they could be motivated by the western popular culture itself which is already heavily invested with both drug and violence. While most of them also could simply have be motivated by what they watch and read in the Western mainstream media about the terrible conditions under foreign military occupation their brothers and sisters in many places around the world are subjected to due largely to the lop-sided and unethical foreign policies and the sheer brutality of the military offensive of their home governments. These injustices could naturally, though unjustifiably, give rise to extreme tendencies and actions like the bombings. It may, quite excusably, be difficult for some non-Muslims to bite into the logic of this reasoning as Islam alone prides itself on being a universal faith system which places a duty upon all its followers to be genuinely concerned about the affairs of their brethren wherever they may be. While Islam itself specifies the legitimate methods allowed to fulfill this religious duty, most of the methods being employed to discharge this religious duty should be placed in political rather than religious context. Also, the brutal and illegal excesses of the Israeli occupation soldiers in Palestine, the killing, maiming and systemic dehumanizing of innocent men, women and children in Palestine, like their counterparts in Iraq, surely cannot be placed on the same pedestal as most of the terrorist incidents going on around the world. To attempt to do that will be to ignore the obvious. 

On the issue of Fatwa, not fatuah as incorrectly spelt in the article, which linguistically means "an answer to a question"- the question being rhetorical or actual- and in Islamic jurisprudence, judicial ruling, the subject has crept into the media's vocabulary and used indiscriminately by the media, non-Muslims and even some Muslims to propagate fear and issue threats, rather than provide guidance based on understanding and interpretation of the intent of the sources of Islam as well the social milieu that produced the issue or question. To consider such a technical subject as binding on all Muslims at all places and at all time even for cases which may be isolated or localized is only a contemporary trend as Islam is an egalitarian system which allows, especially in the case of Fatwa, dissent and debate. The writer's lack of knowledge of this fact and the pretense to show the knowledge is betrayed in the statement 'fatuah (a command to kill) against a perceived enemy of Islam'. The two cases cited in the article are cases of people who transgressed the limits set in Islam by attacking the person and honour of a prophet of God- which could have been any prophet of God- from Adam through to Jesus and Muhammed (PBUT). This is a grave offence in Islam with their specified repercussions and punishment. It is only the flagrant disregard to these boundaries, even in secular societies, that engender friction and disorder.

Only a competent Islamic jurist (in Arabic, a Mufti) may give fattawa and fattawa have been known to be opposed, criticized, accepted, or rejected by other experts in this specialized area of Islamic science. In the second case of 'the deputy governor of Niger State in Nigeria (who) once issued a fatuah against a female journalist who wrote about Prophet Mohamed', the fatwa would not be valid unless the deputy governor is a Mufti or only announcing the fatwa of a Mufti which is subject to the same possibilities of opposition, criticism, acceptance and rejection as stated earlier. However, to call the unwarranted attempt by a ThisDay newspaper staff writer, Isioma Daniel, on Saturday, 16 November, 2002 in an article titled 'The World At Their Feet.....' to smear the name and character of prophet Muhammed (PBUH)& nbsp;and thus causing the fatwa to be issued 'a female journalist who wrote about Prophet Mohamed' is highly insensitive of the writer and a further or renewed call and incitement to public disorder.