Aibu not to know the birthplace of the Prophet Mohammed?

[Quodlibet]

Just that really. I was unaware until today.

It's fairly basic general knowledge if you're not Muslim yourself. And it's no more "made-up nonsense" than knowing that Napoleon was born in Corsica or Karl Marx is buried in Highgate.

I was having a bit of a brain fade today so could only narrow it down to a choice of "either Mecca or Medina".

Consummation of marriage with Ayesha was when she was 9 apparently. There's no minimum age of consent or marriage in Saudi Arabia even now.

walrus that marriage wasnt consummated when she was 9 unlike Mohammeds wife according to her own father in (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236)

There are no firm sources as to the age of Aisha. Some evidence suggests (based on other triangulation of dates such as records of her sister's words) that she was 9-10 when engaged, 14-15 when married. Regardless, even if she was engaged at age 6 she was not married immediately.
I'm not in any way excusing child marriage (though of course it was the absolute norm 1400 years ago) but there is no evidence that they were properly married when she was 6.

All sorts of things which are commonly taught in school can elude your long-term memory. That's not unreasonable.

But I hope something of the life story of Mohammed (pbuh) and the tenets of Islam have stuck, even if not every place-name associated with him.

Given that there's actually no evidence that Mohammed actually existed (similarly, Jesus), I don't see that you should worry about what is claimed, as it cannot be proven to be a "fact" anyway.

'Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.' Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236 :
'The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years).'Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 : both in Sahih al-Bukhari

The belief that Muhammad pbuh consummated his marriage to Aisha ra when she was a child is untrue, although sadly even some Muslims believe it. FWIW He was born in Mecca, buried in Medina and had 11 wives throughout his life.

36

'Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.' Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236
'The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years).'Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 : both in Sahih al-Bukhari

that's nausea, not envy, btw. Vom...

Anyhow, yes, I knew. But I don't particularly care. And I don't think you need to actually know, right?

Nasty dog-whistling going on on this thread.

What does dog-whistling mean Grumpy?

The age of Aisha is open to debate. What is not open to debate is that she loved the prophet and became a great intellectual leader in her day.

Are we supposed to know or care?

I think in a diverse society, some knowledge of the main features of the main faiths is a good thing. Because understanding and tolerance so often go hand-in-hand.

Given that there's actually no evidence that Mohammed actually existed (similarly, Jesus), I don't see that you should worry about what is claimed, as it cannot be proven to be a "fact" anyway.
This is not true, the existence of a man called Jesus, who was a religious teacher is fairly well accepted amongst scholars, including atheists and people of other religions. Whether or not he was the son of God is the faith aspect.

Jesus was invented by the pagan Romans at the time to control the masses....blah blah blah.

Thought most people knew that.

Dog whistling means coded political messages.

It's pretty basic general knowledge, but everyone has plenty of gaps. I would expect most people to at least know the country and be able to hazard a decent guess.

Satishouse It's political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup.

So for example - I could launch a campaign on the premise that it's not unreasonable to not want hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans to come to the UK to undercut homegrown 'British' workers. On the face of it this might seem reasonable but what I'd actually be saying is that Eastern Europeans are a danger to the very fabric of our society and should not be let in this country full stop.

dog whistle is wheresomeone dosnt like what is said but cant argue the point so try to argue that actually there is a hidden meaning most of the time without bothering to explain the hidden meaning

YANBU unless you are Muslim and expected to know this stuff.

yellow6 No - what you're describing seems to be more of a 'straw man' argument.

'Nasty dog-whistling going on on this thread.' thats all they said the didnt explain what the hidden message was.

I don't know and don't care.

and it is a straw man because you decide there saying something there not