Source

Trust Fox to come up with something as meaningless as this and portray it as news. It carries with it a sense of 'Oh my God they are growing in numbers' etc (as though its a scary big deal or something). It seems appropriate that on the same page as the story was a huge ad for extreme-right-wing-posterboy Bill O 'Reilly.

Comment for the sake of it: seems to me likely that the reason for this is simply the popularity of the name amongst the Muslim community. In non-muslim sectors there is no single name that carries the same kind of popularity. Of course this is just a guess - to know more we would need to see figures on all kinds of other things (and it would still add up to a really uninteresting subject).

Funny, I don't see the alarmist tone you do.

Out of curiosity, how much time have you spent watching Fox News? What is your level of firsthand exposure to the network?

Bill O'Reilly is extreme right wing? Which positions of his cause you to say that? He does lean right, but I'd like to know what you mean by extreme and which positions of his you believe qualify him for extreme.

As for the story, of course its news. It indicates a significant population and cultural shift geographically and nationally. Good, bad, or indifferent, that's news.

Were your eyes too full of tears after reading the O'Reilly smear to read the rest of kevmartin's post?

He makes a good argument for why the Fox News story cannot claim anything such as what you said. We would need more statistics to really make that conclusion. Whether Fox News can be trusted to have done the analysis but not present it, well, I'll leave that up to you.

If you missed it, I believe his point can be illustrated in an example: If you population has always had 10% Muslims, and they had previously used all sorts of names, but one year decided to name almost all their boys Mohommed while the other 90% still used a variety of names, Mohommed may just become the most popular name--without any change in the actual population. This could easily be the case, since Jack has been popular for so long, it is likely that people are choosing other names now.

As an aside, it may very well be the case that Muslims are moving into European countries in large numbers. As a matter of fact, they probably are. But to make implications based on names chosen for babies is not really journalism.

So you guys are disputing the fact that the Muslim population is growing in the U.K?

The real question is: will they be angry?

You can't blame the 1.6M Muslims that the other 57M are not all calling their children the same way.

Muslims in the UK have a history dating back for centuries.

Former Colonies, Commonwealth etc.

This is just bizzare to me. Why are you guys going to such lengths to dodge the FACT that the Muslim population in Europe is increasing? Aside from any judgements about whether that is a good, bad, or indifferent thing, why are you so afraid of recognizing the fact?

You don't? Gee, I'm shocked.

More than enough. I cut off my pay-tv a while back after realizing I hadn't watched it for some months, but when I have had exposure to Fox, I have given it a fair chance. O'Reilly is enough to turn one off the network all by himself, but I really don't think I saw much of anything on other time slots worth watching either. There's a great DVD available which highlights the kind of problems I saw, called OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism - but I am doubtful you have it in you to give it an **objective** viewing. (My personal assessment is CNN are better, but also guilty of the same thing to an extent, and the same can be said of a lot of other TV news shows both here and in the USA).

I haven't seen his show for 2 years or more - when I did have access to Fox, I watched him enough times to get a handle on what he is, then was disturbed enough to never watch him or give him any credibility again. I don't recall specific issues, but feel safe in challenging you to come up with any position he holds which is NOT very conservative. We have jerks like him in the media here too, but predominantly they are confined to AM radio on the talkback channels. I say predominantly because there are a handful of TV shows, sometimes referred to as 'tabloid journalism' here. To use an old term, they are rabble-rousers. They make a living out of stirring up trouble and causing conflict. Whether O'Reilly and others like him do this consciously, or really are just the 'rednecks in suits' they come across as, who can really say (rhetorical question - answer: only they can)?

To me, for something to warrant the label news, and be broadcast on a news show (where people tune in - whether on TV or the web - to find out in a snapshot, what's 'important')that something really ought to have some importance. This story does not qualify. This is rabble-rousing at its finest. To watch the results, have a look at some reader comments on the original story on which the Fox story is based:
Original Source Story at thisislondon.co.uk

Exactly like a talkback radio show.

Actually, if you read (and comprehend) the posts, nobody is denying that the population is increasing--or making any statement about what the population is doing.

I can't speak for other people's motivation, but as for me, I am just playing devil's advocate and poking fun of the fact that people are using babies names as some sort of official indicator when, in fact, there is plenty of data (from census reports and what-not) that can tell us the exact increase/decrease. I can't help but think the original article was targeting simpletons who know babies names, but have a hard time comprehending percentages. The fact that the name is Mohommed--the same name as the Muslim prophet--is just icing on the cake.

Mmmm, I like cake.

Mmmm, me too. Best part of this thread so far.

B.O.T, Yes the Muslim population is growing in the UK... and guess what...... brmrmrmrmrrmrmr *drum roll* so is the English, Chinese, Pakistani, Irish........ blah blah. Every single population is continually increasing, that's not news, that's just a fact today, yesterday, and tomorrow.

More boys in the UK called Mohammed ?, piffle, impossible, just based on a guessed total population count.

Fox news is complete shite, I'm not going to waste my time posting the whys and whynots, it is just the lamest excuse for a news network, and everybody knows it.

So, silly thread, silly news. I'm going to get some cake.. YUM!

Ooo! just one thought.... If Mohammed becomes THE most popular name, can we let kids in schools call their Teddy Bears Mohammed? or will that cause a Jehad?

I appreciate you dealing with my questions. If you'd like to send/buy me the DVD, I'll be happy to watch it with an open mind. PM me if you really want to send it to me and I'll respond with my address.

There is one show I like on Fox News called Red Eye, but its not really a news program, and by like it, I don't mean I go out of my way to watch it, I just tivo it and watch it if I'm in the mood.

As for O'Reilly, he's one of the last conservative guys I'd hitch my wagon to. I used to think he's a good interviewer because he doesn't allow people to sit there and spin and give bullshit answers, but I lost all respect for him after that mini-scandel where he was accused of sexual harrassment. More than that, he either isn't sincere enough, or he's actually too moderate. I don't like it when people try to play it down the middle, that's why I was a bit taken back when you accused him of being "extreme right wing." We both have our problems with him, but obviously much different ones.

As for the growing population of Muslims in the U.K. its not like Fox is the only one to have ever noticed it or reported. Just google it. Stories about the issue abound worldwide.

The article isn't claiming to draw a conclusion about the rise in the Muslim population from babies names, its already common knowledge the population of Muslims is on the rise, the article pointed out that the rise in numbers of Mohammeds running around is a result of what is already taking place, not an indicator.

That depends on the dynamics of the Muslim population where you live. In some places it'll get you beaten and cause riots as we've seen in the news. I renamed my female dog Mohammed, and so far no rioting, but then you guys are the only ones I've told.

It's not an issue for me.

And btw, I know the numbers of Muslims in Europe is increasing, but your topic was about a name.

Still, you should use your brain a bit. 2M vs 57M. It's not like your name nonsense is a good indicator for the growth of the muslim community in the UK.

But well, you make it sound like everyone will be Muslim in a couple of years if we wouldn't put them into the gas chamber.

Again, no one but those making straw men arguments have claimed its an indicator. Its a result. Its also a fact. Draw your own conclusion from it, but its a fact.

No one denied that lol

There's one example. Its also an example of throwing something against the wall to see if it sticks. No facts. Just posturing.

the muslims are increasing, but not to (at least in the uk) the degree people in this thread seem to think, but the only thing that irritates me is the way they segregate society, they form their own shops/schools/towns and dont mix with anyone else, if you go to Reading or Bradford you'd be hard pushed to tell you werent in sudan or something, multiculturalism my balls, there just making mini-countrys inside the uk. and that is what irritates me, theres been a recent influx of eastern europeans into the uk courtesy of the stupid EU immigration rules, but they dont bother me too much as they mingle theyll talk to the natives and generally try to become part of the uk, the muslims dont integrate which is why seeing the elusive "moderate majority of islam" which seems rather more like a significant minority to me, is like trying chase shadows.

Immigration without assimilation is invasion. Imo.