Should Kate's and William's baby be named Mohammed?

It's said that the royal baby should have a "traditional name".

Mohammed is Britain's most common baby name. And muslims and islam are the most revered and protected of all.

Mohammed is also quite "traditional" considering its widespread usage during the last 1400 years.


However, according to muslim stories (historically completely unreliable, yes I know) the original muslim Mohammed was a racist/sexist  pedophile who started the worst ideological crime ever against humanity.

And today the echo of this humongous crime is still around us in the form of OIC and its Human Rights violating Sharia declaration, and in millions of atrocities against non-muslims or wrong-muslims. Here's just one example from the islamic world:

Nina Berglund:

Marte Dalelv of Tønsberg was jailed and convicted of illegally drinking alcohol and engaging in extramarital sex after she contacted Dubai police to file rape charges against a male colleague. He was also convicted, not for the rape but also for having extramarital sex and drinking. Dalelv was pardoned and released on Monday after pressure from the Norwegian government and strong international protests that her human rights had been violated.

Her alleged assailant was also pardoned and released, which caused protests to flare up again. “The fact that he was pardoned only shows once again that women’s legal standing in such countries is incredibly poor,” Ulf Leirstein, a Member of Parliament for Norway’s conservative Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet, Frp), told newspaper Dagsavisen on Tuesday. “Norwegian tourists should think twice about whether this (Dubai) is a place they want to visit, and thereby support economically.”

The evilness of islam today is its Human Rights violating Sharia

ICLA: As most here would know, we have two main definitions of human rights, the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the European Human Rights Convention, both sound human rights instruments.

However, a third and potentially dangerous alternative definition exists, sponsored by the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), namely the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. This declaration, originally drafted by the Iranian theocratic regime, makes each and every right subject to Islamic law, also known as Sharia. This, in turn, negates the very notion of inalienable individual rights and several other essential values.

The Cairo Declaration is recognized as a so-called “regional instrument” by the United Nations, but rarely, if ever, used or referred to. It is thus functionally redundant, yet its approval creates an unneeded and potentially dangerous ambiguity in the formal definition of the human rights. For Sharia is incompatible with democracy and fundamental human rights, as stated in 2003 by the European Court of Human Rights, and thus the Cairo Declaration is equally incompatible with any meaningful definition of human rights, as well as with several OSCE commitments.

Thus, to avoid willful misinterpretations of what “human rights” refer to, it would be good for the protection of human rights defenders to have the Cairo Declaration explicitly repudiated by those OSCE pS that also hold membership of the OIC. If they do not do so, they should provide a detailed justification for keeping this declaration on the books, and the intended use of it.

ICLA thus recommends that:

OSCE makes a statement that the Cairo Declaration has no relevance to its understanding of human rights.

OSCE pS that are also members of OIC explicitly repudiate the Cairo Declaration as being of no relevance, now or in the future, for the interpretation of “human rights”.