Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Dastan

Muhammad, Most Popular Name In Britain

Recommended Posts

Muhammad, Most Popular Name in Britain

 

Muhammed, the name of the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him and his progeny), has become the most popular name for newborn babies in England and Wales in 2013.

 

Figures from the Office for National Statistics revealed that the name of the Prophet (PBUH&HP) has beaten Oliver as the most popular name chosen by parents over the past year, Breitbart London reported on Friday, August 15.

 

Though the announced results put Oliver at the top of the list with 6,949 times, the statistics put the different variation of the spelling of the Prophet name in different entries at leading positions in the list.

 

This means that "Muhammad" came in 15th with 3,499 children but "Mohammed" was 23rd with 2,887 and "Muhammad" was 57th with 1059 given the name.

 

As a result the top three spellings alone accounted for the names of 7,445 boys, easily beating the second most popular name Oliver easily.

 

News that Mohammed is the most popular boys name in Britain was first exclusively reported on Breitbart London following a leak at the ONS last week.

 

At the time, Mohammed was already the most popular boys name in London by some considerable margin.

 

The estimates showed that the Muslim name was the most multi-cultural London and the West Midlands, while Oliver came out top in the South East, South West and Wales.

 

Britain is home to a sizable Muslim minority of nearly 2.7 million, mainly from Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin.

 

The name of Mohammed has grown in popularity in recent years.

 

In 2009, the name of the Prophet became the most popular name for newborn babies in England and Wales.

 

Mohamed came third as the most popular name in Britain in 2008.

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

I would be guessing that this could be due to the large number of muslims choosing to relocate to the UK and the fact that in general they have big families. ;) I'm not sure what other conclusion you would come to. I mean it won't be the Christian population or any other non Muslim sector of society in the UK, very unlikely they would choose the name Mohammed. Are you seeing this as a statement about immigration or something?

 

Blessings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what you are "seeing". It is limited to the Muslims moving to the UK. But what you are not seeing is the huge number British people embracing Islam. They also name their children after the Holy Prophet (pbuh&hp).

Edited by Dastan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have numbers to back up your claim? I have read somewhere that 75% of converts are women, usually through marriage. I know this is likely as when my husband was Muslim before we married I was under pressure by his family to convert. It was not right for me, and not right that one should be put under pressure simply to marry. I also read that about half that number leave Islam. It makes no difference really. Religion should not be about numbers I feel. People should be free to worship God that feels right to them or even free not to believe at all, and all should be treated the same.

 

You of course are entitled to believe what you like. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want numbers you can search about it. I was making a point against your claim that this -the holy name being popular- is because of the Muslims moving there. But you want to ignore about the fact that there is conversion to Islam.

 

Again, I won't comment about your personal family issues. Neither should you tell the strangers about it. And you witness something doesn't mean it is widespread. There might be families who put the women under pressure, and there might be families who don't. But the Islamic stance is very clear. See, Holy Quran, 2:256. Thank you.

Edited by Dastan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The estimates showed that the Muslim name was the most multi-cultural London and the West Midlands

Well, London and the West Midlands are areas of the UK that have a sizeable immigrant population. I'm sure it's a factor. I'm not ignoring or denying the fact that many people do convert to Islam. I just don't see it as important. Why do you consider it important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important that mankind, as representatives of God on earth, leave false ideologies-religions and accept the true faith; Islam. And it is important that they know God and they accept who He sent as the last Messenger and they are in love with him and name their children after him.

Edited by Dastan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your opinion Islam is the true faith, there are a few billion people worldwide that do not agree with that. The only thing I really agree with here, as a person of faith, is it's important to know God, knowing God is not dependant on acknowledging any one prophet, in this case the prophet of Islam. As a few billion people of faith world wide would say they know God but would not accept Mohammed.

 

Surely all love is for God. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the statistics are for Muslims in the UK who convert to other religions or decide to practice Islam no longer. I wonder what they do with their names. I know an ex Muslim woman from Yemen who converted to Christianity but she has kept her surname of Mohamad as she was worried about retribution from the Muslim community.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the statistics are for Muslims in the UK who convert to other religions or decide to practice Islam no longer. I wonder what they do with their names. I know an ex Muslim woman from Yemen who converted to Christianity but she has kept her surname of Mohamad as she was worried about retribution from the Muslim community.

Good point Spiritlead. I have never bothered to look that up as I don't attach that much importance to names. I mean, my surname is Tunisian as my husband is Tunisian, and I guess the assumption could be made that we are muslims or at least he is, yet we are both Christians. I guess many Christians in Islamic countries have what may be seen as Islamic names. I could see it would be convenient to keep them. lol.. My husband asked if he needed to change his name to a Christian one. I told him no, It's not important to God what name he goes by. :) I will ask him what he thinks on this and get back to you. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

    • By Saracen21stC
      Srebrenica: the silence over Britain's guilt must be ended
       
      Douglas Hurd's handling of misguided UK policy on Bosnia contributed to Europe's worst war crime since 1945

      By Vernon Bogdanor
      Thursday 12 July 2012 16.45 BST
       


      A Muslim woman grieves at the casket containing remains of a relative killed in the Srebrenica massacre – one of 520 recently identified victims of the massacre who were buried on 11 July. Photograph: David Lee Bathgate/Corbis
       

      Seventeen years ago, on 13 July 1995, there began in the former Yugoslavia what Kofi Annan, former UN secretary general, has called the worst war crime in Europe since 1945 – the shooting by Serb forces of about 8,000 unarmed men and boys at Srebrenica. The victims' only crime was that they were Muslims.
       
      "By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims," Theodor Meron, the presiding judge of the appeals chamber of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, has declared, "the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity". The war in the former Yugoslavia led to the killing of about 100,000 people and the displacement of more than 2 million, the vast majority Muslims.
      While primary responsibility for the massacre lies with the perpetrators behind it, a secondary responsibility lies with those who could have prevented it but failed to do so. In 1992 the UN had imposed an arms embargo that stopped Bosnian Muslims exercising their inherent right to self-defence against the Serbs, who had inherited the former Yugoslavia's army, the fourth largest in Europe.
       
      Robert Hunter, the US ambassador to Nato from 1993 to 1998, believes that Britain was the country most responsible for preventing intervention by the UN or Nato to rescue the Bosnians. "Britain," Hunter has said, "has a huge burden of responsibility for what happened at Srebrenica." Responsibility for "Nato's failure to act militarily lay in London". When, after Srebrenica, Nato was finally authorised to conduct air strikes, the war was ended in 20 days.
       
      The British people showed more humanity than their rulers. In April 1993, more than two out of three people in a Mori poll supported the dispatch of British troops, while in February 1994 over half wanted air strikes against the Bosnian Serbs. But the foreign secretary, Douglas Hurd, defended the arms embargo since lifting it would create a "level killing field", a remark that drew from a retired Margaret Thatcher the stinging retort that there already was a "killing field the like of which I thought we would never see in Europe again [...] It is in Europe's sphere of influence. It should be in Europe's sphere of conscience".
       
      In addition, Britain's borders were closed to refugees since their interests, Hurd argued, "would put pressure on the warring factions to treat for peace", the implication being that the refugee problem would force the Bosnians – the victims – to surrender. Britain's stance had become that of the priest who passed by on the other side in the parable of the good Samaritan.
       
      It is time, surely, to end the polite silence that has so far attended Hurd's conduct of this country's foreign affairs during the conflict. The Srebrenica massacre offers a dreadful warning of the dangers of a "realist" foreign policy that ignores the fundamental values holding liberal democracies together.
       
      In March 1999 the Blair government took a quite different view of Balkan affairs, pressing Nato to commit troops to Kosovo to counter the threat of genocide against Albanian Muslims. This led rapidly to the fall of Slobodan Milosevic, denounced for dragging his nation into a war it could not win.
       
      In April 1999 Blair defended his foreign policy in an important speech in Chicago. "We need," he declared, "to enter a new millennium where dictators know that they cannot get away with ethnic cleansing or repress their people with impunity." In Kosovo, Britain was "fighting not for territory, but for values". The "principle of non-interference must be qualified in important respects". We needed "a new doctrine of international community" to give "explicit recognition that today more than ever before, we are mutually dependent". In consequence, we had a right, if not a duty, to intervene to prevent genocide, to deal with "massive flows of refugees" that become "threats to international peace and security", and to combat rogue states.
       
      These ideas have now been embodied in the 2005 UN initiative, Responsibility to Protect, based on the principle that sovereignty is not a right but a responsibility. It is this principle that David Cameron and William Hague adopted in Libya, and seek to adopt in Syria.
       
      In 2004 the Serbian president Boris Tadic apologised to Bosnia-Herzegovina for crimes committed in the name of Serbia; and in March 2010, the Serb parliament issued a declaration "condemning in strongest terms the crime committed in July 1995 against Bosniak population of Srebrenica". Kofi Annan also has apologised for the UN's policy of "amoral equivalence". But there has been no apology from Douglas Hurd, even though British policy in Bosnia implicated Britain in the worst atrocity Europe has seen since the Holocaust.
       
       

      Source:http://www.guardian....a?newsfeed=true
       


×