Name of Mohammed 2
Islam

Mohammed, not Oliver, is UK's most popular baby name for boys

 

According to the Office for National Statistics, 6,649 baby boys were named Oliver last year, making it the most popular baby name for boys born in the UK. This was closely followed by Jack, and then Harry, followed by Jacob, Charlie, Thomas and George; and then come Oscar, James and William. A veritable feast of Norman French, if not Germanic, obscure Gaelic, biblical Hebrew and Greek with a smattering of medieval English diminutives.

But it’s misleading. The ONS background notes (p7) inform us:

The published rankings have been produced using the exact spelling of first names given on the birth certificate. Grouping names with similar pronunciation would change the rankings. Although some groupings are straightforward, others are more a matter of opinion, and thus raw data are given so users can group if they wish.

Which the BBC helpfully extrapolates (right at the bottom of the page):

Spelling variations of the same name are counted separately in the data from the ONS. When considering name variations in the top 100, the Muslim name Mohammed totals 7,240, compared with the top boys’ name Oliver at 6,649.

And this was also the case last year, and the year before, and the year before that (and, indeed, the year before that and the year before that). And so, year after year, all the media headlines ritually sustain the perception of classic and cultured Englishness, while the truth is a little different, and the one they call ‘The Prophet’ is conquering the baby-name charts.

But God forbid the BBC might incite middle England to splutter over their cornflakes. They just wouldn’t go with: ‘Mohammed overtakes Oliver, Jack and Harry as most popular baby name’, for fear of fomenting Islamophobia. The Independent didn’t mind last year: ‘Mohamed tops boys’ list‘, they announced, which the Daily Mail corroborated: ‘How Muhammad is now the most popular name for baby boys..‘ And between that ‘Mohamed’ and ‘Muhammad’, you begin to see the problem. They’ve been on the case at least since 2007, when the Telegraph made the same prophecy: ‘Mohammed to overtake Jack as favourite name‘.

But it didn’t. The media went mute on the matter, and every year since we’ve been fed Oliver, Jack and Harry as the most popular baby names for boys. How could a name (the most common spelling of which is ‘Muhammad’) which was Number 17 in 2007 have disappeared altogether in 2008? It is as if there were a conspiracy to conceal the multicultural reality.

The convention is that names spelt differently are recorded differently. Thus Phillip is distinct from Philip, and Stephen from Steven, despite identical pronunciation. If the rules were changed, it wouldn’t then be case of having to classify Ollie with Oliver, or Harry with Henry, or Jack with John, as the Guardian posits, because such variations have become quite distinct names in their own right: indeed, the etymological derivations would be unknown to the vast majority of people. But the spelling variations of the Islamic prophet have no bearing at all on the pronunciation, whether it’s spelt with a ‘u’, or an ‘o’, or two ‘m’s or one

Even when one takes into account that there are at least 14 different spellings of the name, it is puzzling that there isn’t a petition in Tower Hamlets for official recognition of the ascendancy. The main two variations – Mohammed and Muhammad (a non-Arab Muslim would adopt the name ending in ‘-ed’ while an Arab Muslim would adopt the ‘-ad’ ending) – are complemented by Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Mahammed, Mohammod, Mahamed, Muhammod, Muhamad, Mohmmed, Mohamud and Mohammud. And these are augmented still by the much less-common Mehmet or Mohemet.

The name ‘Muhammad’ (which, however it’s spelt, means ‘one who is praiseworthy’), like all transliterations, comes from replacing the Arabic script with what is deemed its closest Latin equivalent. It is well known that Muslim parents like to have something that shows a link with their religion or with their prophet. Parents who name their son Mohammed believe that the name has an effect on their personality and future characteristics. They are saying that this boy will be of good character.

Muslims account for 4.8% of the British population – about 2.7 million people. This is being swelled every year through procreation and immigration (legal and illegal), so much so that demographic estimates project a Muslim majority in the UK by 2050. The Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the non-Muslim one. ONS statistics show that Muslim households are generally larger than those of other religions: the average size of a Muslim household is 3.8 people while a third contained more than five people. It is therefore unsurprising that ‘Muhammed’ entered the Top 30 names in 2000, reached Number 17 in 2007 (an increase of 12%), and its rise up the league tables ever since has been driven by the growing number of young Muslims having families and naming their baby boys after their prophet.

In London, Muhammed is No.1 and Mohammed is No.10. Perhaps if British Muslims were to standardise the spelling, they would guarantee themselves the UK top slot in 2015. Whichever way you look at it, a preponderance of Mohammeds, Muhammeds, Mohameds or Muhameds has to be better than hordes of babies called Danerys, Sansa, Theon, Tyrion or Khaleesi. And let’s not ignore the gross offence of Princess Tiaamii, Fifi Trixibell, Bluebell Madonna, Apple and Moon Unit.

  • bluedog

    Only thirty-five years before a Muslim majority? It’s hard to see this ending quietly and peacefully.

    • tjamesjones

      it’s an extrapolation, not a prediction. it’s not too late for the natives to find a reason to have kids and actually populate their country.

      • TJ

        Actually, many of the Muhammeds are ‘natives’ and it is as much ‘their country’ as it is that of the Olivers, Jacks, and their sisters

        • bluedog

          Indeed, but the problem is that the Muslim population remains culturally and defiantly alien, seeking to impose non-native values. A state with the state, as it were, and heavily welfare dependent.

          Recall in Denmark a survey disclosed that the 5% of the population which is Muslim consumes 40% of the Danish state’s welfare budget. When the Muslims are 50% of the population, what percentage of the welfare budget will they consume? Will the figures be different in the UK?

          • Chalcedon

            The Danes better wake up. There has been race riots in Malmo, Sweden, rather close to Copenhagen.

          • Anton

            The Danes have one of the very few politicians willing to speak up, Geert Wilders.

          • bluedog

            Mr Wilders speaks in Dutch, however.

          • Anton

            His English is pretty good – so good that the last Labour government disgracefully banned him from entering this country to fulfil an invitation to speak in the House of Lords.

          • The Explorer

            He’s Dutch, not Danish.

          • Anton

            Oops. Thank you! May all nations have such a man.

          • bluedog

            The Danes are wide awake, hence their courageous decision to conduct the survey, and to go even further and publish the results.

            It is the Swedes who are fast asleep. In their eyes, these were not race riots because there is nothing to distinguish between a Swede born in Mogadishu and a Swede born on Gotland.

        • The Explorer

          Absolutely true in their capacity as Britons. The question is in their capacity as Muslims.

        • dannybhoy

          You are correct. People who live in this country legally, pay their taxes and obey the laws are natives, regardless of where they originate from.
          http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/7.18
          If however we look at the indigenous* population
          * http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/indigenous
          we realise the extent to which our nation is being changed through immigration, legal or illegal.
          It is the implications of that change which should cause concern.

        • Chalcedon

          It will never be their country.

      • bluedog

        In other words you can see the potential problems of the ‘natives’ (White British?) failing to do so?

    • Otto von Bismarck

      Very reluctantly, I agree somewhat.

    • Bernard from Bucks

      “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!”

  • Michael Worcester

    Wow, Labour has to wait till 2050 to get back power?

  • Neil2

    The BBC misrepresented this ?. Surely not.

  • The Explorer

    Spirit of Linus speaking.

    “Fake alarmism. There is absolutely no threat. Squawk, squawk!. The sky is falling!”

  • The Explorer

    One hopes it is not significant that the name Oliver is associated with a civil war.

  • elizabeth sadler

    I remarked on it yesterday and said it everywhere.Why do we have to pretend??

    • The Explorer

      Because of hate speech. People don’t want to lose their livelihoods.

      • dannybhoy

        Succinctly and cynically put..

  • David

    Unless the Muslim population integrates, and we see now sign of that, we will have an island that is even more balkanised than it is already. Importing distinctly different faiths and cultures, which refuse to integrate, can only increase social tensions and disharmony. I see only disadvantage in that.

  • Afghanistan Banana Stand

    “In London, Muhammed is No.1 and Muhammed is No.10…”

    Same spelling.
    Am I missing something?

    • The Explorer

      Yes: Mu and Mo. (Unless His Grace has edited his post since you commented.)

      • Afghanistan Banana Stand

        My comment was a direct paste taken at the time, so I suspect His Grace has since been busy with the edit function… 🙂

  • The Explorer

    Hedonism. Not having kids gives you more disposable time and, more importantly, more disposable income in which to enjoy yourself.

    Reality.
    1. Hedonists age; however much they try to disguise the fact.

    2. A short term-hedonistic country does not give you a long-term hedonistic country. It gives you a long-term Muslim country.

    • Anton

      Yes, but you won’t care if you are dead, and you won’t mind during your life if the revolution is not imminent and you have no kids to suffer its consequences.

      • The Explorer

        Certainly true of you’re a consistent hedonist. Patriotism etc will not be high on your list of priorities.

        Joke from a few years ago.

        Is there life on Mars?
        Gordon Brown: If so, can we tax it?
        Hedonist: If so, can we screw it?

  • Anton

    I looked into this a little while ago. Combining variant spellings, Mohammed was the
    second most popular name for newborn boys in Britain in 2007 (NHS Central
    Register statistics, after which the NHS ceased to compile such stats), and the most popular in 2009 in England and Wales (Office of National Statistics, October 2010). It has been the leading baby boys’ name in Brussels for several years, as also in Italy.

  • Anton

    Thank you Tony Blair.

    Bill of Attainder, anyone?

  • Orwell Ian

    We reap what we as a nation have sown.

    Democracy = Tyranny of the majority. It will be our undoing.
    The Turkish PM described Democracy as being like a bus. You choose where you get off. No Islamic party ever gains power with the intention of relinquishing it. Given the community’s track record for electoral fraud the crunch will come earlier than 2050.

    While the British are recklessly aborting themselves into minority, Islam is relentlessly breeding its way to supremacy.

    • Sigfridiii

      In certain places “Democracy” = One Man – One Vote – One Election

  • The Explorer

    I trying to sort out statistics and projections, three things to be borne in mind.

    1. Second (or third and fourth) wives from abroad. If four wives of the same man each have two kids, is that four families of two kids each, or one family of thirteen?

    2. More conservative predictions are of only 16-20% Muslim by 2050. The problem is what happens after that. The indigenous who swell the current numbers are older than the new Muslim population. They will die off. Consider the balance of those being born now in thirty year’ time.

    3. Surveys suggest more Christians (even if nominal) among the older generations than among the young. As the older Christians die off, their numbers will not necessarily be replaced. Young Muslims are far more likely to become adult Muslims than young secularists. are to become Christians. Thus Islam as the predominant religion in this country in the future is not merely panic-mongering or fanciful.

    • Sam

      The backlash that real Islam will produce will also produce a strong cultural Christian identity maker , which other minorities will suffer from as well . Don’t expect them to get the theology correct, it would be a cultural identifier (English:Christian). It won’t be c of e who benefits (the x of e could have gone Muslim by then). More likely a new denomination. It’ll start with things like animal welfare, male circumcision, burkah ban.

      I’m convinced that the only reason why people are getting on the kosher slaughter/circumcision circuses and want to change the law is as a back the door way of culturally attacking Islam, but withour that ridiculous nomenclature “Islam phobia”, as animal welfare could just about trump racism and definitely religion (plus there’s the cover of being able to use Jews as examples of how this isn’t Islamphobia because of similar practices).

      But also ironically the reason why law hasn’t changed is precisely because of fear of Islam ( no one fears Jews or Judaism ) and burka wearing . You’ll see atheists identifying with Christianity in a loose cultural way, such as Richard Dawkins .So we’re on this track right now.

      • bluedog

        Can’t see a burkah or scarfing ban except when the burkha is full face. Is that a burkah? If Muslim women are so culturally repressed that they walk around in black tents, more fool them. Can’t see a circumcision ban either, the medical benefits are too clearly defined. The issue will be animal welfare and specifically un-stunned killing.

        We are moving beyond animal welfare towards a community acceptance of as yet undefined animal rights. Killing animals for human consumption by cutting their throats and letting them bleed to death doesn’t pass the pub test, however it is done and by whom.

        • Sam

          The point being made by I was that the slaughter issue would have been settled long ago if it were only Jews doing it.

          • bluedog

            True.

    • Malcolm Smith

      That won’t happen. Long before that the indigenous population will stand up and demand something be done. So much the worse for the Muslims if the indigenous have neglected their Christian heritage; mercy is a Christian virtue not necessarily shared by the ungodly. The worst possible scenario will be that the government still refuses to do anything, and the people take matters into their own hands. Trust me, you would not want to be a Muslim if the mob takes over.

      • bluedog

        …and it will.

    • Busy Mum

      With regards to your third point, it becomes increasingly difficult for Christian parents to retain their children as nominal Christians. Our children are invited and encouraged by the government, acting through the schools, to challenge everything they have been brought up to believe, to reject family as the most important group of people in their lives and prioritise ‘friends’ instead, and to spend their teenage years ‘discovering who they are’ and ‘finding their identity’. Muslim children know exactly who they are – whereas indigenous British children have had their identity deliberately stolen and have been brainwashed into believing that they must ‘find’ some future good despite their shameful ancestry and guilt-ridden and murderous white colonial past. Deliberately kept in ignorance of what was actually due to them – a great and glorious Christian heritage.
      The traitors will pay one day – ‘Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord’.

  • Sam

    Well the call centres would have you believe otherwise : every time the phone rings and someone with heavily accented Indian sub continent English from a call centre in either Rotherham or Karachi (I can’t tell which) reads from his script ‘ello my name is Jonathan’ or if a girl ‘lucy’…

    • The Explorer

      When he rings up and says, “Hello my name is Mohammed (or Muhammad),” then it really will be time to worry.

      • MacGuffin

        No, it’s when they come to the door and say that Mohammed sent them that you’ve really got to worry.

        • wtf

          Yes that would definitely be time to get the hell out before its too late. They will not take a no ‘no thanks’. Convert, give me your house, or die will be the choice. That is a fact.

    • bluedog

      My reply to those calls is always, ‘Modi’, in my best, heavily accented, sub-continental English.

      • Sam

        WellI just “come out ” as a Jew or if they don’t get that Zionist . That normally doors the trick. I will say that the change in attitude towards becoming more visibly Jewish : wearing a kippah and flashing my tassels has been most noticeable amongst those I know (or get spoken to by ) from the religion of peace. It’s not a pleasant reaction either. Incidentally I was told by a mail Muslim the other day Jews copied the food laws and circumcision from Mohammed and the Koran. I asked how this was possible as the Torah was around first . Apparently Jews and Christians have corrupted the Torah , which originally was like the Koran.

        • The Explorer

          That’s it. Mo (or Mu) was very angry about accusations that the religion was “just an ear”. He got round that by saying Islam was the original revelation. The Jews corrupted it, and the Christians corrupted it further; so a repetition of the original (ie, The Qur’an) as necessary.

          The problem with it is the lack of any supporting documentary evidence. This lack has committed me to reluctant (actually, notthat reluctant) scepticism about the claim. I think Muhammad heard garbled versions of Judaism and Christianity and added his own spin. But don’t say that to a Muslim if there’s an axe or a knife in the vicinity.

          • Sam

            Dude

            Thanks for the tip, not that it is a crime to criticise a religion?

            The thing is Kurds (at least Iraqi Kurds) by and large are Muslim, but just aren’t fanatical , some of them drink and most wear western dress.I get on well with them. So if Muslims could be more Kurdish…..

          • CliveM

            More ‘mainstream’ Muslims refer to people who are a bit, shall we say ‘liberal’ as being like Kurds.

          • The Explorer

            It is a crime to criticise a religion if the religion is Islam. Islam says so and PC says so. PC will fine or imprison you. Conscientious Islam will kill you. There is no more sincere criticism of yourself than suicide. There is no more sincere criticism of a religion than leaving it; but when it’s Islam, your departure can be a death sentence.

          • CliveM

            As I believe has been repeatedly said, it is interesting how Allah always seemed to ride to the rescue of Mohammed with a timely word or revelation.

        • Anton

          You didn’t know that? The Muslim claim is that Islam was the original monotheism, that the men of faith in the Old and New Testaments were Muslims, and that Jews corrupted the Old Testament (Quran 2:75, 4:46, 5:13) and Christians corrupted the New (Q5:14-15). Hence the need for Muhammad to put everybody on the right track again. If you become a Muslim then you are said to “revert” rather than “convert”. I was reminded of George Orwell’s writings about historical revisionism (and the wonderfully cynical related comment made shortly after a purge in the Soviet Union, “the past is very unpredictable”).

          I have discussed the issue with a Muslim and I asked for evidence – literary, historical, whatever – for the claim of textual corruption, such as when, where, who, why. I was baldy but courteously told that “Muslim scholars” had found it to be so. I said that I thought the speaker owed it to himself to look into it on his own account. Conversely I have systematically sought Islamic scholarship about textual corruption of the Bible. I failed to find any that was ancient, and more recently there was only (and sadly) a Muslim quoting of post-Enlightenment liberal “higher criticism” of the biblical texts.

          • Sam

            Dude

            No I didn’t, as studying my own faith takes up the time I concentrate on these matters . If one woman is enough to be wedded to, then so is one religion. Which is more than enough.

          • Anton

            I am wedded to one religion. But when another starts bombing my land, I study it. Shalom to you and your lady.

  • len

    What a sad indictment for this once great Christian Country for the name of the founder of Islam (and all that entails) to be voted most popular name for boys in the UK.

    Perhaps a judgement on us all?.

    • CliveM

      To be picky, this wasn’t a vote. It was a record of names given to new born boys.

      • Vera

        Perhaps Muslims have a limited number of boys names whereas not only do we have our old favourites but constantly create new ones.

        • CliveM

          Could be worse, they could all be being called Osama or Abu.

        • The Explorer

          Yes, very good point. 10% of the babies/toddlers in England and Wales are Muslim. That’s a much more helpful statistic.

          • Orwell Ian

            It’s not too encouraging since 4.8% of the population are producing 10% of the newborn. Neither is it that helpful as immigration (legal or not) has a more dramatic effect on demographic trends. Throw polygamy into the mix and…….
            I’m off to lie down in a darkened room.

    • Jon Sorensen

      Maybe it is Allah’s judgement on us all.

    • Anton

      Actually I think it is. All family breakdown stats – divorce, children born outside marriage, children living with one parent – plus abortion – have gone hockey-stick by a factor of 10 after having been stable for centuries, and have done so at exactly the same time as the rise of Islam here. Those of us who believe that Jesus Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth and who believe that the rise of Islam is not a positive thing have no alternative but to conclude that it is His judgement, and I am suggesting for what.

      • My views exactly Anton.

      • Lambeth Conference 1930.

        • Anton

          Meaning, of course, the approval of contraception – in those days, barrier methods – within marriage.

          That was not a watershed because such things had been legal for some time and were obviously used by many respectable couples, whether Anglican churchgoers or not. You can tell that from the average number of children born to couples getting married in each decade over the last 150 years. More than one generation lived their whole lives using contraception and did not go sexually crazed as has happened today.

          It is possible, however, that the Pill was partly behind the explosion of promiscuity in the 1960s, liberating single women to behave as badly as single men. Ban it? Only if you are of the gun control mentality; it’s not guns that kill people, it’s people who misuse them…

          But a much deeper cause of modern promiscuity is the promotion of it by sex classes in schools – sex education that would count as paedophilic grooming on a 1:1 basis – and the subsidy of its consequences by the (Welfare) State. And a deeper cause of the decline of the indigenous European population is the escalating cost of raising children relative to income as a result of government policies.

          The Catholic obsession with contraception by a priesthood that has, over the last thousand years, been consistently unable to match its doctrine of celibacy with its actions (read HC Lea’s An Historical Sketch of Celibacy in the Christian Church), is absurd – as about half of Catholic couples discreetly recognise, according to some surveys.

          • Before 1930 all Christian Churches regarded contraception as sinful. From there on, the Churches began to accommodate and legitimise sex as recreation instead of procreation.

          • Anton

            God regards sex as for marital bonding (Genesis 2:24), with children as a normal consequence. If you think you know the purposes of things in His creation better than He does, take it up with Him.

            It is not procreation when the wife is postmenopausal or pregnant or lactating or in the (deducible) infertile part of the cycle, is it? And your denomination nowadays regards marital sex in those situations as OK, which is a great improvement on the view of Pope Gregory “the Great” whose Pastoral Rule 14 centuries ago (bk. 3 ch. 27) stated that not only was sex for procreation only but even then it was not to be enjoyed. He was the first monk to become Pope, so perhaps the first celibate to talk nonsense on the subject in the Catholic church – but not the last.

            The churches regarded contraception as sinful because it had always been associated with prostitution. When respectably married housewives started using it (with no deleterious effect on society) they had to rethink, and were perhaps a little behind although Genesis 2:24 was a clue for them.

          • We’ve already had this debate. God gifted man sex for physical and emotional bonding as well as procreation. The two cannot be separated without consequences. It’s like eating for pleasure alone then vomiting to avoid gaining weight. So long as the natural process is not interfered with artificially by contraception or sterilisation, age and/or sterility are of no account.
            The Church’s teaching has developed down the centuries too, so why refer to a previous Pope who, to Jack’s knowledge, made no formally binding pronouncement. Sex within marriage can indeed be sinful if it is abused for selfish purposes. Besides, what has celibacy got to do with discerning God’s will and using reason to develop a moral framework?
            Are you seriously suggesting contraception is not having a deleterious impact on society? Please! Not only has sex become a recreational activity with consequences for all of society, but by giving approval to it the Churches opened the door for both abortion and for sanctioning homosexuality.

          • Anton

            I refer to Gregory “the Great” because of his great influence, and because when you say he “made no formally binding pronouncement” that is simply legalism projected backwards from a time when Rome had become totally legalistic onto a time when it had not trodden so far along that path.

            You say: “God gifted man sex for physical and emotional bonding as well as procreation. The two cannot be separated without consequences.” Yet husband and wife who have sex when they have deliberately and reliably determined that the woman is in the infertile part of her cycle are doing just that. Yet the Vatican says that is OK. Inconsistency?

            “Are you seriously suggesting contraception is not having a deleterious impact on society?”

            Do you seriously believe that guns should be prohibited? I am not changing the subject – the analogy is a close one.

            “by giving approval to it the Churches opened the door for both abortion and for sanctioning homosexuality.”

            What nonsense. The churches were against abortion in the 1960s. As for homosexuals, they were hardly likely to use the Pill and they did not start using condoms until the AIDS era 15 years later.

          • bluedog

            The second cause of the sub-replacement birth-rate is abortion on demand. Put that and the Pill together and you have a pathway to extinction. In this regard, the Muslims clearly have it right, they know how to breed.

    • Demon Teddy Bear

      Well if you think of it that way, perhaps it is.
      After all, the establishment rejected God, rejected morality, rejected Britishness, and established vice and luxury. What usually happens to such self-indulgent people?

  • CliveM

    Seemingly Mohammad’s (the oft praised one) own advice was for new born boys to be called Abdullah (Slave of God).

    The old fraud, is probably furious. Didn’t like being ignored or questioned.

    Also shocking lack of imagination shown by the followers. But then as they are members of a culture that ossified 700 years ago we shouldn’t be surprised.

  • Little Black Censored

    I’ll stick to Mahomet.

    • if you say ‘stick’ they’ll think of Khazouk

  • CHBrighton

    So? Populations change.

    • The Explorer

      I saw a poster on a Muslim march. ‘Sharia law for Britain. No drugs, no gays, no slags’. As you say populations change. Quite a radical change there.

      • Sam

        Exactly . Anyone remotely on the left would be critical of such a religion, but are not.

    • Demon Teddy Bear

      Only by violence.

    • Inspector General

      Indeed they do, CH. Just look at the ghastlies that inhabit Brighton now…

      While you’re there, one notes the RCC in Scotland has formally apologised to its abuse victims today. Wouldn’t it be fitting if the gay community also extended their own regret for what happened to said unfortunates. After all, members of your community were the perpetrators, and the guilt permeates through all homosexual men, as you know.

      How about something from you then…

  • David Prentice

    You’d think, given how many BBC staff indulge in the love that dare not speak its name, they might view the coming Muslim majority with some trepidation. But no, not the left – even as they’re hauled out of their homes in the middle of the night, even as they’re led away to the camps, it’ll still all be Thatcher’s fault.

  • Jill

    What about this then: Belfast Pastor on trial for offending Islam

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6356/pastor-james-mcconnell-islam

    Better be careful what you say!

    • Dominic Stockford

      Shan’t.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    replacing the Arabic script with what is deemed its closest Latin equivalent

    The multiplicity of transliterations of the Prophet’s name results from Arabic being usually written with just the consonants, MHMD. No vowels and no diacritic to indicate the doubling of the second M. In Your Grace’s illustration, the name is written in full with vowels and diacritics. The small writing below the name is difficult for me; all I can make out for certain is allah, on the first line. The second line may be ism, name.

  • The Explorer

    PC says it’s okay to criticise Christianity because of Christianity’s hegemonic status. It’s not okay to criticise Islam because of Islam’s minority status.

    PC’s verdict about what happens when Islam has hegemonic status is irrelevant, because when Islam is the dominant religion there won’t be any PC.

    • Anton

      PC can get stuffed.

    • bluedog

      Quite right, Mr Explorer. One imagines it is widely understood that this communicant is the soul of moderation, compromise and Christian charity, never seeking to provoke or wound in thought, word or deed. However…
      A recent article in a well-known print media organ, to which this communicant subscribes, commented on the fact that both the Conservative and Labour candidates for the forthcoming London mayoral election are Muslim. One was not at all surprised but was nonetheless moved to comment via disqus words to the effect, ‘The emergence of a very large Muslim demographic in this country over just two generations is a strategic error of potentially catastrophic proportions’. There were other similar posts in response to like minded contributors to the thread.
      It now appears that this communicant has been blocked from further comment. Presumably we can expect more of this sort of self-censorship as the forces of Islam, possibly financed by the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia, exploit the legal system to crush all opposition.

  • David

    On a totally unrelated topic …
    I have just bought a translation by Dyson of Augustine’s foundational work “The City of God against the Pagans”.
    Have any of the congregation gathered around His Grace’s pulpit, who may have already read this book, got any advice or wisdom to offer before I embark on the tome ? I’ll probably start reading it in the Autumn, still being busy with outside work at present.

    • Anton

      Yes; do remember that it was elicited by the sack of Rome by Germanic “barbarian” tribes under Alaric in 410 AD. Augustine was a Christian trying to make sense of that event in the light of Rome being the capital of a supposedly Christian empire; how could God have let it happen. It is one man’s answer and well worth reading for its digressions at least, although it is not the answer I would have given.

      • David

        Thank you. That’s appreciated.
        The lengthy Introduction, which I’m plodding through, tries to supply the historical context.

    • chiefofsinners

      Anton’s summary is a good one. ‘Worth reading for its digressions’ hits the nail. Also worth reading for the insight it will give you on the depth of Christian thought in the period and for the points where it will throw you a different perspective. Surprisingly easy reading in my experience.

      • David

        Thank you. My anticipation mounts !

  • Demon Teddy Bear

    The word is “treachery”. We are betrayed.

  • Sam Patten

    Good article, except your decision to include the link to that Commentator article. There will not be a Muslim majority in Britain in 35 years. Not for at least 100 years. Haven’t you heard about the boy who cried wolf?

    • And you’re one of those in denial.

    • Yes, I keep hearing that from people who deny the problem. Remember how the story of the boy who cried wolf ended? He was eaten by a wolf.

    • ZX10

      They have already changed how we do law by pushing a parallel system , how we think, speak , draw ,eat , vote ,they have change whole areas of our city’s to their way of life they have introduced horrific backward practices on a terrifying scale and all this long before they achieve majority !

  • blingmun

    As the Muslim population increases Muslims will find less need to integrate with the host culture. They naturally settle in places where there is a Mosque and where they have relatives or friends. Consequently there are already many parts of the country where Muslims are in a majority at school, in the shopping centre and on the street where they live. At home they watch non-British TV channels and their lives centre on the Mosque not the pub or the local church.

    Attitudes among British Muslims towards democracy, freedom of speech, tolerance of other religions, the rights of women, homosexuality etc. show little sign of adapting to that of the native population, even today as a small minority. As the host culture becomes more remote from their lives they will become more assertive of their existing values, not more acquiescent and willing to adopt new ones.

    Assuming that many ethnically white British will not choose to convert to Islam and adopt a Pakistani/Bangladeshi habits of mind, it is difficult to imagine how the country will not become balkanised.

    • David

      Yes indeed !

    • Bingo…

    • Isn’t it curious that the homoenablers like Mandelson were so keen on mass immigration. And curious that the two neologisms ‘homophobia ‘ and ‘Islamophobia’ came into common usage around the same time?

  • carl jacobs

    The natural reaction is “OMG! These Muslims are taking over!” But that is the wrong reaction. The correct reaction is “OMG! These self-centered, self-serving Occidentals refuse to assume the obligations of parenthood.” In fact, they don’t even recognize an obligation of parenthood. To replace oneself and continue the line is now an “option” – like buying blue socks as opposed to red. The purpose of life has been relocated into the fulfillment of autonomous desires, and children get in the way of that imperative.

    So we contracept them. And abort them. And defer them. We have wealth – for now – there being no children around to make demands on our time and money. And we have our precious autonomy. But we increasingly have no progeny. That is someone else’s exercised option. Who exercises that option? Evidently people who want to name their sons “Muhammed.”

    • Dominic Stockford

      Our communal moral failure is true enoguh – but it shouldn’t be allowed to hide the truth. Islam isn’t far from causing great danger to the UK. The next London mayor will probably be one.

      • The danger is and has always been apostasy – this brings consequences. It’s a Natural Law. We’re designed by God to live a certain way. Ignore this and some evil always comes along to rectify matters. Wiping out all Muslims tomorrow would not improve the situation because some other evil would simply take its place.

  • McRobbie

    And that reflects the BBC. Head of religion in a christian country should be ? Oh its the BBC of course.

  • Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    So Mohammad in all its variants is very popular. But that hides the fact that 99% (or some other high percentage) of Muslims name their male child as such. Its only because the vast majority of the UK population use a huge variety of different names for their children of both sexes is the only reason why Mohammad is seemingly popular. If the majority of British (anglo-saxon as well as black, brown, yellow, or green) by attitude named their male kid Oliver then Mohammad would be relegated to a lowly position in the name table.

    • CliveM

      Your logic would have it relegated (in all probability) to second place!

    • IanCad

      A very good point, and one that I have not considered.
      Definitely puts a different slant on things.

    • it’s not a good point at all, you are merely stating an obvious numbers fact; I’ll add to it: if all Muslims and everyone else named their child George then all the children would be called George! …you are missing the whole pint of why they name their children Mohammed.

      • IanCad

        It seemed a pretty good point to me. What on earth your mention of George has to do with anything is beyond me. I don’t think that any on this blog are unaware of why Muslims name their boys after Mo.

  • Inspector General

    Your Inspector would be a very old fellow after 2050 if he was still around. Probably muttering “I told you so” to what was left of this country’s white race. If he is so unfortunate to find himself in a nursing home, kept alive solely so the nursing staff may steal his pension each month, he would with little doubt be fearing the time when they finally get fed up with him and have him ‘voluntarily’ euthanized. Or would he be past caring by then?

    Anyway, onto cheerier stuff. One has read of late that all is not exactly well in inter muslim relationships within England. The two main branches of Islam are of course in eternal dispute, and it can be only a matter of time before they start cutting each other’s throats here. And then will come the explosions. It would be wonderfully invigorating if this unease they have with each other spilled over to include the way that awful name is spelt.

    Does anyone have figures for the two main Islamic allegiances in the UK. Perhaps Mr Rottenborough if he’s around…

    Peace be upon you all, chaps…

    • Phil R

      Around 2.3 million Sunni, Shia around 400K and approx 50k for the rest

      • Inspector General

        Thank you for that Phil. The minority won’t take it lying down, you know…

        • Phil R

          Very soon there will be more Muslims in the UK than the population of Wales.

          • Inspector General

            Where there’s a will, there’s a bomb, as they say…

          • Wales? What’s that?

          • Phil R

            Home.

            Do you feel that way about England?

  • Inspector General

    One notes fear of democracy should the muslims become a majority. Well, the reassurance there is we will hopefully be dispensing with that form of government in the style of the Egyptians when the need arises. Don’t have much choice in the matter, if we don’t want to be persecuted for the colour of our skin and our lack of bushy beards. Besides, there is on the internet a famous chart stating (not predicting mind, for it is based on observation) our self-made road to doom. The Inspector downloaded it years ago. Before current events that be are proving it to be so amazingly accurate…
    ——————————
    As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be, for the most part, regarded as a peaceful and loving minority and not much as a threat to others.

    At 2-5%, they begin to convert other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups. Particularly from jails, prisons, and thuggish street gangs

    From 5-8%, they exercise in excessive influence to proportion of their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of ‘Halal’, which is clean food by Islamic standards. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature Halal on their shelves, along with threats for failure to comply

    At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves within their ghetto under Sharia, the Islamic law. The ultimate goal of the Islamist is to establish a law over the country, and essentially the entire world.

    When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as the means for complaint about their current conditions and/or the way they are being portrayed in the media. In Paris, they’re already seeing a vast increase of car burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Muslims, and results in uprising and threats– such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Muhammad, cartoons, and films exposing Islam

    After reaching 20%, nations can expect extreme rioting, Jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues

    At 40%, the country experiences widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and a steady increase in ongoing militia warfare

    From 60%, nations experience persecution of all non-believers (including non-conforming Muslims), scattered ethnic cleansing, usage of Sharia law as a weapon, and Jizya

    After 80%, expect DAILY intimidation by violent Jihads, ethnic cleansing on a national scale, and even some genocide as these nations drive out the infidels and progress toward a 100% Muslim population.

    Now, you would think that the country would FINALLY see peace at 100%, right? WRONG! The most dedicated, radical Muslims CONTINUE to intimidate, spew hatred, and satisfy their bloodlust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Well laid out. Looking around trhe world one can see the various tipping points being reached in countries such as Kenya and Nigeria, with the concomittant death and destruction that results.

    • bluedog

      Excellent, Mr Inspector. This little flow-chart seems to have gone into hiding recently. Good to get a reminder.

    • LeeSouthend

      The infamous Muslim saturation index. When you watch global news it’s scarily accurate. Only the wilfully blind can deny it.

      • Inspector General

        That’s the spirit. Should be on the national curriculum, what!

    • EnglandLaments

      And all because of a bloodthirsty, schizophrenic, sixth century paedophile!

      • Inspector General

        Gives the cruel and evil races something to worship, but one is sure that eventually their death cult will mean the end of them…

        • CliveM

          It would be a rum deal if something so intent on devouring itself, should pose a real threat to this once great nation.

          Divide and conquer and let the b>$¥%*s fight themselves.

          • Inspector General

            We just have to ride out this business called democracy which has brought us so close to ruin, Clive.

          • CliveM

            Democracy is like a good wine (or whiskey) in moderation it does you good, to much of it leads to ruin.

  • John Waller

    I have often thought that Social Services could draw up a fairly
    effective “at risk” register based solely upon sight of every child’s
    birth certificate.

    Johnathan remains the principal abomination in this area, due to its ignorant conflatiion of two wholly distinct biblical pedigrees. Grrr!

  • Inspector General

    Well done Span Ows, correctly identifying Mohamed as a fighting name, given by parents who have no intention of leaving their unpleasant racial baggage behind…

    • Thanks IG, those that give the Oliver/Ollie ‘excuse’ are entirely missing the point.

  • ‘But they did not listen, for it was the will of the LORD to slay them.’ (1 Samuel 1:25).

    It’s too late.

  • chiefofsinners

    Only one list of names matters:
    “Rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” – Luke 10:20
    I don’t suppose Mohammeds will top that list, but our job is to help them onto it. Stop whingeing and evangelise, people.

  • Glenmoriston

    Good piece, except for the last paragraph which totally ruined it.

    • chiefofsinners

      Agreed. Although the name Moon Unit Zappa is a mighty abomination to the nostrils of all God fearing folk.

      • Jack disagrees. At least calling a child after a false prophet is an attempt on the part of those entangled in this delusion to honour God and His ‘prophet’ in some way. This has to be better than these atheist and crass alternatives. Believing in God – even if His image is a distorted and misrepresented – is better than denying His existence altogether.

  • Doh

    Arabic is a phonetic language and the name of that bloke they like to think of as a prophet has one spelling, it is merely the transliteration into other alphabets that causes different spellings.

    Britain is being invaded as much by the maternity wards as by the hordes at Calais.

  • EnglandLaments

    Shows an incredible lack of imagination amongst British Muslims doesn’t it?
    It would have been akin to Victorian English families naming all their boys Jesus.

    • Ivan M

      It wasn’t always like this. Some sort of tribal marker has come into play. It is as though everyone in Nazi Germany named their sons Hitler

      • James60498 .

        I agree with you there, from personal experience at least

        I knew a number of Muslims at University, and have worked with a few since, and as far as I can remember only one was called Mohammed.

  • Dreadnaught

    Given the wide and influential reach if the internet and this blog’s potential profile among the great and the good, I think it is a very bold statement for Cranmer to head this submission with what some sensitive souls could take to be a representation of some long dead so-called religious prophet.

    Bravo I say and keep safe. It is through what remains of out liberty to speak/publish freely will continue to come under attack from the enemy within. Every ‘Mohamad’ is endowed with the potential for extreme violence in pursuit of advancing the cause of the ‘religion of peace’ and that chicken will come home to roost once a critical mass of similar thinking people emerges.

    Douglas Murray (for one) and Cranmer deserve to be heard/read in Parliament and the rest of the political platforms of Europe to shake some sense into those that have the power if not the backbone to make a stand to preserve the accepted European way of life in Europe.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/06/religion-of-peace-is-not-a-harmless-platitude/

    • CliveM

      Dreadnought

      Thanks for putting up this link. An excellent and balanced article.

    • EnglandLaments

      Europe is led by donkeys. Muslims are flooding across the pourous borders of Europe, with the absurd Schengen agreement permitting these economic migrants to choose which country to settle in at will. All the useful idiots in Brussels and the UNHCR can do is call for “burden sharing”, when they should be calling for burden reduction.
      Face facts – people are not “fleeing conflict” when they seek to enter Europe – they have already escaped conflict when they seek refuge in Turkey or Jordan or the Lebanon – what they are seeking is a “better life”, i.e. they are economic migrants to a man, especially those coming via Libya. By entering Libya to get to Europe, they are actually choosing to enter a conflict zone for that very purpose!
      The PostWar settlement is dead! Our purblind politicians refuse to recognise that fact. The asylum system is broken and should be scrapped. The ECHR has become a vehicle whereby any knave can defer or refuse deportation indefinitely, aided and abetted by judicial activists across the EU.
      The problem in Europe could be fixed, if the political.will were there, but it is not. There are too many leftists suffereing from “white guilt” complexes who hate their own cultures, in positions of power across Europe.
      The least bad thing the UK can do, is to exit the EU and secure our own borders, before everything implodes!

      • Dreadnaught

        Sad but all too true, except I still think a European Common Market was a good idea. I would rather see UK booted out for preaching reform than simply walking away into what kind of future?

  • ds1986
    • whs1954

      A bunch of useful idiots under the guise of the sloppy lazy leftist Channel 4 say it’s not true, oh well, that settles the issue, doesn’t it?

    • FruitcakeTheClown

      “The fact about muslim majority is wrong”

      Because channel 4 say so!? LOL

  • HedgehogFive

    From: http://aeon.co/magazine/culture/is-archaeology-better-off-without-religion/

    A parking lot that could hold 2,700 cars was dug out, as bulldozers cut through souks that had been inhabited for 26 centuries. ‘They sent in bulldozers without any supervision or anything and dumped into the sea a Bronze Age palace, tombs, all this was thrown to the sea without any excavation.’

    … excavators had been reluctant to allow archaeological assessment before the dig, in part because it would slow them down, but that there was more going on too. ‘Beirut was destroyed not only because there was a company that wanted to build without taking into consideration any archaeologists, but because archaeologists played the game.’ The game … was one of history and politics more than one of science. ‘They were afraid of finding something that would be Phoenician, and not Arab.’