Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Aug 22, 2008 in Uncategorized | 15 comments

THE POWER OF PRAYER II: Muslims blame Christian prayers for Muslim leader’s death.

Following up on a recent post about how effective Christian prayer has supposedly been in reducing pump prices in the US, there’s now more news from Nigeria about the alleged power of Christian prayer.

ILORIN, Nigeria, August 14 (Compass Direct News) – Blaming the death of their leader on Christian prayers, an Islamist group that launched a hate campaign in response to an evangelistic event in 2004 is reportedly attacking Christians in this Kwara state capital with renewed virulence, area Christians said.

Muslims are attacking Christians because they think that Christians prayed for the death of their leader, and their prayers worked.

Why would their prayers work, though, if, as Muslims think, Christianity is a false religion? Very weird.

Go here for the report.


  1. You wouldn’t expect them to think rationally, would you?

  2. Well if this Christian God guy really can smite his enemies at will, I wouldn’t be going around attacking his worshipers!

  3. Muslims believe that Allah can grant non-Muslims their prayers and desires – but only for thing in this worldly life, not for things in the Muslim afterlife. Likewise, Muslims believe that Allah will reward non-Muslims for their good deeds in this worldly life – not in the Muslim afterlife. However, presumably, Allah doesn’t answer prayers for the death of a good person. And supposedly, sometimes he does. I don’t know – theism is a very confused ideology.

  4. I think we should make a practice of calling ourselves ‘rationalists’ instead of ‘atheists’, and describing theists as ‘irrationalists’ – which clarifies the actual difference between us and them.

  5. Hmmm – Would I be justified in sacking someone (or otherwise discriminating against them) for being irrational?

  6. You may not be justified, but you might be wise – depending upon the circumstances.I would prefer to fly in an aircraft piloted by someone who relies on the various instruments and flight control directions, rather than upon prayer.

  7. You hit it right on the nose, Stephen. Muslims believe there is only one god, so why would that god, their god, answer the prayers of Christians to kill a Muslim leader? The cognitive dissidence should be kicking in any minute now… anytime now…

  8. This is a splendid opportunity for each group to demonstrate the superiority of their one true god.Each group can pray for the death of the other group’s Nigerian religious leader and see who succeeds.To avoid cheating, only supernatural deaths would count, eg, the Christian leader is fatally beaten by an attack of killer communion wafers, or the Muslim leader is shagged to death by 72 raisins. I’d be convinced.Kiwi Dave

  9. The whole idea of prayer seems problematic for most modern theists.It makes a lot more sense if you believe in fickle, vain Gods who will be swayed by pleadings, groveling or offerings. So when you’ve spent ages trying to convince everyone that your God is ultimately responsible for everything, and either knows what is best for you and everyone else anyway or else has purpose beyond mortal understanding, why try to influence Him? He’s hardly going to be impressed by threats or promises, or to need helpful advice. It seems to be a hangover from polythesism – at least the old Gods were known to be flawed, vain and partial.

  10. Richard Dawkins was on Channel 4 TV recently, complaining to some teachers of science who were not pushing evolution, that evolution was TRUE. Is that true in the sense of part of the best current scientific model?

  11. anon 3, Evolution is true in the sense that gravity is true and the germ theory of medicine is true. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

  12. Prayer is emotionally and perhaps psychologically beneficial if those praying feel comforted by it, whether rationally or not. It is when theists try to prove that prayer has a ‘scientific’ basis that it becomes contentious. In that broadcast, the science teachers were saying to Dawkins that they taught evolution as the best scientific explanation, but they did not consider it was any of their business, as teachers, to encourage their pupils to question their religious faith. When Dawkins asked them “why not?” they just gawped at him. Not very logical teachers, if you ask me!

  13. Stephen, sorry for the delay replying; my point was that prima facie inconsistency is commonplace. Another example: you would mention what the Bible says about the origin of animals, and then treat the sophisticated ways in which believers usually interpret such sayings as their wriggling out of it, out of your literal reading. And yet modern science, both exact and empirical, is full of sophistication when it comes to what they are saying.Dawkins chose not to side with the Archbishop against the literalists, with liberalism against extremism. Now, there is a lot of evidence that gravity is true, but what do you mean by ‘gravity’? Some action upon your body’s mass (or any body’s mass) by some other body’s mass, usually at a considerable distance? That seems like a very Newtonian notion. Do you even understand the Einsteinian notion? The science teachers were very logical, perhaps too logical for the 20th century, but hopefully not for this one…

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *