Sign of the times?

[Abbey Marie]

'Muhammad' Jumps to No. 2 in Britain as Most Popular Name for Baby Boys
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
The Times

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times of London has found.

The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

Scholars said that the name’s popularity was driven partly by the growing number of young Muslims having families, coupled with the desire to name their child in honor of the Prophet Muhammad.

Overall, Muslims account for 3 percent of the British population, about 1.5 million people. However, the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than that of non-Muslims....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278635,00.html

[chum43]

I think it's more of a sign of just how many muslims name their kids muhamed... surely if every other christian kid were named, let's say jesus, it would be number one and more of a sign of population, this is just due to the fact that muslims are more closely unified in the ideal name for a child, thats all.

[Abbey Marie]

Did you miss the bolded part?

[chum43]

Did you miss the bolded part?

three percent of the population and a birthrate 3 times larger than that of non-muslims would still put the number of muslims being born WAY WAY WAY below the number of non-muslims... so the fact that the name is number two doesn't really mean anything except muslims like to name their kids muhamed...

the birthrate for muslims being 3 times larger by itself would be significant, but all that other stuff doesn't mean squat in comparison to it, and it would only really be significant if it were a broader statistic, but this is just britain, it's one country, if it were all of europe or north america, sure sign of the times... but I haven't seen those numbers yet, they could be in the same ballpark, if they are, then you have something, but i don't know what they are.

[diuretic]

I don't mean to sound offhand but - so what? 3% of the British population. Okay the birthrate is three times that of non-Muslims. Again, so what? The ethnic makeup of Britain has never been static, heck it's been changed since 50-something BC by invasion after invasion. The Romans were first and when they left in came the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Vikings and then of course the Normans (transplated Vikings) in 1066. Even the Dutch took over in the 17th Century. And of course later on the Germans (well, Hanoverians I suppose) took the throne. And there was that Scottish bloke James as well. And later the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line.

If you're concerned about a different religion taking over then look back. There were the Britons perfectly happy being very pagan and suddenly there are the Romans with their pantheon. After they left in came those pagan Saxons etc. Then came Christianity with the early missionaries which took a fierce hold. Later immigrants brought their religions as well, Muslims are fairly recent on the scene.

I don't think there's much to worry about.