Seamus Colemole
Previously deathbyropeandglass
Not with all the variations of Mohammed, Mohamed, Muhamed etc its not! FACT
Again i ask if there is soemthing you're deliberatly not telling us regarding that "fact"?
I'll give you one more chance.
Not with all the variations of Mohammed, Mohamed, Muhamed etc its not! FACT
Damon in factual error shock horror!
All it means is that a large proportion of muslims name their kids mohammed, anyway.
Theres multiple variations of Mohamed, Mohammed, Muhamed etc. If all FOURTEEN (14) variations of the name are combined together then it's top!
It was 2nd in 2007 ffs !
"What can't be named Muhammad?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7115821.stm
FACT. You argumentative ****s!
As in previous years, the name Mohammed, which ranked 16th, would take top place among boys if all possible spellings were aggregated. But as a spokesman for the Official for National Statistics pointed out, this is potentially misleading if no other names are similarly combined: there were still more Olivers than Mohammeds if you count the 511 Ollies, 127 Oliviers, 124 Ollys, 16 Ollis and 9 Olis born in 2009. The merging of Harry with Henry and Jack with John would produce similar disruptions to the list.
damon: Most "popular" baby boys name in the UK 2010.
Mohamed (and variations thereof).
FACT.
All it means is that a large proportion of muslims name their kids mohammed, anyway.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/27/oliver-top-boys-name-jack
So you are deliberatly including variations of Mohammed, yet ignoring variations of Oliver to try and prove your "fact" correct then.
Thought so.

lol your response to FACT is some jank ass web site?
Why dont you read the Quran, since you seam to want to defend it so much.
Well worth the sacrifice made by millions then.
Our government onside? Not my government. The Brits had little choice but play along as their armed services had been emasculated by successive governments after the Great War. It would also have had a near impossible job to persuade you Brits to fight a war so so soon after the First until and unless the public could see it was really the only way forward. There was also the question of public finances being on the slide ... tricky buying bullets and bombs if you've only got three bob in the kitty.
As to being onside, politically, there were swathes of society which were anti Semitic (at that time, Jews were the Muslims - blamed for everything) and which also longed for the smack of firm government, preferably a dictatorship, and who admired both Mussolini and Hitler.
British people seem to have no very clear idea of their own history, do they? But why spoil some good prejudice with facts.
The Guardian. They can of course be trusted to give an unbiased opinion quoting someone from the National Office of Statistics for good measure - who don't with political pressure manipulate statistics ... of course!
And trying to claim that all the ollies amount to more than Mohameds +14.
Politically trying to cover up the dominance of that in the birth rates. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. The redacted Labour migration reports - prove this happened in the early 2000's.
lol your response to FACT is some jank ass web site?
Why dont you read the Quran, since you seam to want to defend it so much.
EFCNIK is that you?
I'm defending decent honest Muslims against attacks on them by people who think because some people who follow the same religion as them are extremist idiots that they all are.
And that site gives actually examples of quotes from the bible does it not? Which sure, they can be twisted. Just like the quotes in your post.
Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.