Hey Jack Mohammed!
Filed under: Britain, Immigration, Integration, Muslims — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on June 6, 2007 @ 4:18 pm CEST
The Times reports:
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 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 rise up the league table was driven partly by the growing number of young Muslims having families, coupled with the desire to name their child in honour of the Prophet.
To be fair, just about every immigrant family has a ‘Mohammed.’
Muhammad Anwar, Professor of Ethnic Relations at Warwick University, said: “Muslim parents like to have something that shows a link with their religion or with the Prophet.”
Although the official names register places the spelling Mohammed at No 23, an analysis of the top 3,000 names provided by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) puts Muhammad at No 2 once the 14 spellings are taken into account. If its popularity continues – it rose by 12 per cent last year – the name will take the top spot by the end of this year. It first entered the Top 30 in 2000.
Should we consider this a sign that Britain should limit the amount of immigrants she allows into the country every year?
Overall, Muslims account for 3 per cent of the British population, about 1.5 million people.
Only 3%? That’s it? Then, what’s the problem?
However, the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the nonMuslim one.
Ah.
Three thimes higher: that is quite shocking, at least to me. Of course, that is not so difficult to do considering that Europeans do not get children anymore (which will give us great problems within a couple of years time, when the baby boomers will retire).
It seems to me that the British government should consider introducing policies that encourage couples to have children. Not just to counter the birthrate of Muslims (which I do not consider to be a problem as long as those Muslims are well integrated), but to make sure that the baby boomers can retire, without ruining the economy.
Whether the #1 name is Mohammed or Jack is irrelevant, at least in my opinion. What matters is whether the society is healthy, living and vibrant.
1 C Stanley
June 6, 2007 @ 4:22 pm CESTI was just talking to my children’s dentist this morning and she had just returned from a trip to Switzerland (with her husband and two kids). She said it was eerie, she practically saw no children there besiders her own- everyone was either older, or young adults without kids.
2 mvdg
June 6, 2007 @ 4:25 pm CESTlol - she shouldn’t go to spas then.
I don’t know Christine, if you ever visit the village I live in nowadays, you’ll positively surprised I guess. A lot of parents with little children.
On the other hand, this village is quite an exception: the population has doubled in the last 10 years I think.
3 C Stanley
June 6, 2007 @ 4:29 pm CESTShe was in Zurich, so I’m not sure if the birthrate is exceedingly low there or if it just seemed that way compared to here, or what.
4 Andy
June 6, 2007 @ 4:48 pm CEST3 times higher?!?!? OMG, they might reach 5-6% of the population in a few decades.