Template talk:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sirya and Ghazah of the Prophet Muhammad[edit]

http://military.hawarey.org/military_english.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misconceptions2 (talkcontribs) 20:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Template location[edit]

Why is this template being added to almost every single page on Islam ?

This template belongs only in articles that strictly discuss battles/expeditions ordered by Muhammad, main articles on Muhammad or his military career. I'm reverting all unnecessary spam Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A more appropriate template (or category) to include in articles on Muhammad's companions would be Participants of Battle/Expedition "X". Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Background colour[edit]

The grey/blue background colour is too dark to make easy reading of the items in the lists. Please can we make it lighter (eg 94BAD2). -- SGBailey (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The background of the table makes the template UNREADABLE. Please make a white background with clear black text. --J. D. Redding 02:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Ps., be nice to get the table to a 275px or less width. ... Pps., Template:Islamic Culture is done better than this template, if you wanna keep the background, make the damn text clearer.

ok, will do that tommorow, as today i am busy--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, i have lightened the background and image so that the text is more noticeable. you can compare. this is old version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad&oldid=430837296 --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't read it still ... I made the links darker and put the tablebackground back to match the image. Maybe the image 'blue' need to be lightened and then match the background to a that light color. --J. D. Redding 15:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear J.D Redding, i believe you have caused some problems, as some text have dissapered. here is your version


i have changed the colour to a darker blue. i think the links should be blue as that is usually standard for the colour of the web links. let me know if you can read it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You switched it back to a blue. Sigh. 00009c is a Primary (Blue). Why are you doing this? Do you understand the colors need to contrast so you can read it? --J. D. Redding 10:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

ok, i have used the same colour scheme as this Template:Islamic Culture, hope you can read it now--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That looks alot better. Readable now. Looks like you edited the image too. Good. I was thinking you wanted to keep the nighttime theme. The reader/audience can see the links clearer I think now. 07:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody agree how ugly it is now? You can't just copy-cat from another template, as they have different styles. A huge black box is extremely irritating. Sorry :( ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The huge black box is horribly ugly, and very distracting in an article. Why can't it just be plain white? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Plain white. Great Idea. Who'da thunk? Be the easiest and best way, JIMO. But there is a motif thing I think that is going on. --J. D. Redding 23:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't have any preferences to black or white in this template, but black could be justified as a resembling of the Black Standard Davidelah (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

i dont mind any colour, but prefer black because of the black flag muhammad used according to the hadith--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
They used tons of colors to determine groups, so why are you trying to push that he just used black. Do some research yourself instead of just using one statement; as white is the most common, then yellow, then green...etc.
Anyways, to the point, the box is extremely HUGE; so black is making it extremely UGLY. Do you like how the article looks with it? You've got other opinions, so try to make it leveled or something. It was alot better before, but editors were mostly complaining about the text color. ~ AdvertAdam talk 04:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It's way better than what it was before ... before you could not even read it (blue background and blue links = not good). Go Simple, white and black ... with a very light grey (or some other very light color) ...--J. D. Redding 23:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

M2: it looks like consensus is against you. Could you stop reverting and try to convince people on talk? I for one think the current is better than the black, though I would be even happier with plain black-on-white William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

currently, its a mess. this is how it looks like on my google chrome browser: http://tinypic.com/r/8x5zc9/7 --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

anyway. i have took it back to blue. when it was blue. people complained that links where to light. so now made links much darker. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't we use the default Wikipedia theme? » nafSadh did say 14:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

((( Just so folk know, after several days of staring at this template - which I know has "an image" at the top of it - I've just realised that it a chap on a horse waving a flag with a giant birdie beside him. I seriously hadn't managed to work out what I was looking at before - maybe the lighter background colur has helped! Doh. -- SGBailey (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC) )))

See what you mean, guv. I didn't notice that before, either. I've tried to just make the background plain white, which allows all the links to go back to standard blue, which is much easier William M. Connolley (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I've updated as per my suggestion in previous comment (coz it wasn't clear to all what I meant by ‘default’.) My edit comment is “Almost wiki default! Just kept the color to match image. Used |pipe| instead of raw <html />” which is the same as what I wanted to mean in the previous comment. » nafSadh did say 17:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice it is, after Misconceptions2's edit following mine. It looks better without the image. :P » nafSadh did say 19:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Too many trivial pages[edit]

This isn't about the template, but this may be the most convenient place to talk. There are too many trivial pages about minor campaigns. They would be far better as a smaller number of longer pages that actually said something William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that a soon as more data is added the page becomes large and no longer trivial. I have done the bare minimum on these pages to keep them as their own articles. in the future i plan on expanding them so merging them to 1 page wont work out. i tried it in the Caravan raids article. it became to large and i had to separate the articles --Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Burning of Mosque[edit]

A probable edit war [1][2][3] is noticed involving Misconceptions2 and Al-Andalusi on Burning of Mosque in a question of WP:OR. Please talk, before doing further edit on the matter. » nafSadh did say 16:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sooo... re Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar: what exactly is the precise criterion for being a "campaign of Muhammad"? If we have an answer to that, we can settle the question. If we don't have an answer, then we can't William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
None of the cited sources refers to the event (two men burning a mosque with a lighted palm branch) as a campaign (whether it is a battle or a sariyyah). For now, this is an OR by Misconceptions2 and I've removed it from the template until suitable references are provided. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that is particularly plausible, but is that indeed the criterion you are proposing? That we need a preponderance of sources that describe each event as part of a "campaign"? Your assertion that including it is OR doesn't really work. What you mean is, you don't like it. If you were so fussy about OR, you'd be very active elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I think you really should have acquainted yourself more with the Seerah literature, particularly on the meaning and difference between a ghazwah (battle) or sariyyah (expedition) and how the terms have come to be used by classical and modern biographers of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, instead of sharing with us your wisdom on how I should be spending my time. I asked for one reference that names this event as a ghazwah or sariyyah of Muhammad, you and Misconceptions2 have not provided any so far. I have removed the tag (again) and I will continue to do so until a reference is provided. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So, Al-A said 2 men burning a mosque with a lighted palm branch is hardly a campaign. Let us compare, then, Raid of Sa'd ibn Zaid al-Ashhali: all that happened there is that an idol is destroyed and a helpless woman is killed. That one, obviously, is even less a "campaign". Unless there is some clear criterion as to was is part of the "campaign" then the entire template is effectively OR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@Andalusi, why do you keep adding that they wanted to defeat Muhammad? The source does say it here , but Ibn Kathir explains what he meant by this. By adding that they wanted to defeat him, you want to mislead people by making them think they wanted to kill him? right, as that is more apologetical. But source makes it clear that they did NOT want to kill him. just expel him ! so i am unhappy with the part which says they wanted to "to fight and defeat Muhammad and his message" , please add that they did not want to kill him. Since if you expel someone you cant kill them now can you? Or i will add it myself--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

[Incivility redacted - WMC] Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As for the debate about what is a campaign and what is not. I have also redirected another template called "expeditions of muhammad" to this template. So i think this justifies adding anything which sources label as expeditions !, to this box --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk here has become somewhat incivil on Al-A's part. I've asked him to redact his incivil comments. I'm going to leave this for a little while in the hope that he does William M. Connolley (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, he didn't, so I've done it for him. Back to the topic at hand: exactly who gets to declare a given thingy part of the campaigns template? What criteria are there? So far I've seen no reply William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

@William, i see disputes in the future. Would you support changing the name of the template to "Armed missions of Muhammad" or "Muhammad and armed Missions"???--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the first thing to do is establish some clear criteria for what this template is about. Is the source a book? (if so, which one?). Is there a traditional list? Or what. Or are pages added to this template at the whim of a given editor. Al-A seems to think he has a "golden rule" for removing things, but quite what his rule is, is not clear to me. At the moment there appear to be several "trivial" incidents in the list William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message on an obvious crietia. I have also made a suggestion. Please let me know if you back the suggestion about changing the name to something which makes the criteria more obvious. This dispute is mainly between me, and Al-A about whether the demolition of Masjid al Dirar can be included in the template. I think this case is same as the Expedition of Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, which is also called the Demolition of al-Lat. The article in dispute is also a demolition article--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hadith reliability[edit]

Added Template:Hadith authenticity to some of the articles per WP:MOSISLAM#Hadith:

"Articles on hadith should make clear the reliability of the hadith – if they don't, then consider adding Template:Hadith authenticity."

Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

But Al-Andalusi. Most of the articles dont even use or cite hadith (quotes of Muhammad), they cite historial sources like Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi, Book of Idols or Tabari? These sources usually quote Muhammed companions (they hardly quote Muhammad himself). They also quote those who knew the companion, i.e the Tabi-in. You opened a Pandoras box by doing this. Now i will have to go to those articles (about 10-20%) that do cite hadith and say how reliable they are. e.g how reliable Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim , and Sunan Abu Dawud is. What will you do after i have done that? Will you then add another tag? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You also change the wording of the template. if you keep the new wording, i will nominate it for deletion or ask admins to decide its fate--Misconceptions2 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm really baffled by the uneducated claims you've been making concerning the seerah and hadith literatures. If you have any doubts or misunderstanding of a particular issue, which certainly is the case as the last few encounters has shown, then I wouldn't mind you bugging me on my talk page, or using the talk pages of the (1) articles, (2) related templates, or (3) WikiProject Islam which apparently has a hadith task force. But I will certainly not accept you taking the issue to the admins board (after a clearly disruptive Wikipedia:Canvassing) where you correlated irrelevant and misleading claims like the alleged Twinkle abuse or the removal of Al-Baladhuri's cited view, when in fact my edit summary clearly says that I kept it), and never mind the claim that no hadith works were cited by the articles.
This "no hadith cited" narrative was later switched after the board closed the report. It has now become: ok, they're probably hadith BUT the Muslim community has not done a good job verifying every narrative from Muhammad and therefore it makes no sense to add the template when Muslim scholars have not verified them. And hey! let's just assume they're all correct because...they have not been verified !
My reply: this utter nonsense doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
Considering the definition of hadith in the strict sense, they are "reports of statements or actions of Muhammad, or of his tacit approval of something said or done in his presence". Weren't the expeditions (saraya) ordered by Muhammad ? Yes they were, and by the above definition, any events related to those expeditions are hadith. Keep in mind that I'm using here the strict definiton of hadith which is agreed upon by all hadith scholars. (this is not to say that reports of statements/actions of the companions and the tabi'un are not considered for verification, they are actually and using the same principles used for hadith verification, but they referred to as athar and khabar).
You can also see that the term hadith applies to anything attributed to Muhammad regardless of the source or the time the claim was made. So whether the hadith appears in Sahih al-Bukhari, in Ibn Hisham's Seerah, in a tabloid newspaper or your notebook, it is a hadith.
So now that it has become clear how misleading your "no hadith was cited" claim is, it is important to realize that the above are facts, not my opinions. So don't be mistaken that I'm here to convince you to accept these hadith definitions or something, and when I act upon what's stated above, you can revert and discuss and so on. That's not going to happen again really. Under no circumstance you remove a tag from an article until the issue is resolved (your removal of the tags and misinterpretation of the sources in one of the articles comes to mind).
I've ordered a couple of books on Seerah, all edited versions meaning that the assessment of the hadiths are included in the footnotes. Once I receive them, I will go over these articles one by one and tag appropriately any statements cited straight from translated primary works like Al-Tabari. I don't have a problem with including say Al-Tabari's statements if the statements appear in works of modern scholars like Mubarakpuri, Muir or others (though it still doesn't necessarily mean it's authentic or sound), but when an article cites a number of statements from translated works of Al-Tabari, Ibn Sa'd or others then I'm going to add the hadith authenticity template, which was created specifically for this. Notice I haven't mentioned Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim as the authenticity of their hadiths (or almost all their hadiths) are established and accepted by hadith scholars. I know also that the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir contains few weak hadiths. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
@Al-A, what do you want to add to the articles. That muslim scholars dont consider it authentic? Like you said, Mubarakpuri mentions those events/battles. So Muslims do consider them reliable. You will always find people who consider it reliable and people who dont. Even true for Sahih Bukhari, shia's dont trust it, and sunni's do. Also, you said "if the statements appear in works of modern scholars like Mubarakpuri, Muir or others (though it still doesn't necessarily mean it's authentic or sound)". Now there is a BIG problem with that statement. Who decides what authentic and what not, if Mubarakpuri mentions it. then he considers it authentic, and he is muslim. So you can never say on those articles that use Mubarakpuri, that "Muslims dont consider this event reliable"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The template is clear: it says include the assessment of the hadith. Now if 2 scholars, regardless of their backgrounds, differ on the authenticity of a hadith, then both views should be presented neutrally, giving each the appropriate weight. Got it ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, Al-A, you said you were going to buy some sira books. I am guessing you will only by books by Muslim authors. Make sure you buy some by non-muslim authors like Watt or Rodwell to, because you will probably see huge differences between the 2 sources. I have used Mubarakpuri on a lot of my articles and have notice how he always misses out contrversial parts of Muhammad's life. You should mainly buy a book which contains a lot of al-Maghazi. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Really ironic, to hold and defend the position that it's perfectly fine to quote primary sources like Al-Tabari and Ibn Hisham without the need to verify the assessment of the hadiths. But now suddenly, one has to be careful of using the very same sources you used for your articles. Now about your misrepresentation of sources in al-Dirar's article ? misleading statements to the admins ? or your uneducated statements regarding hadith ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The text you quote says consider adding Template:Hadith authenticity. It doesn't say automatically adding it. There is no indication of what consideration you've used, because in all cases you failed to provide edit summaries. Please discuss controversial mass actions in advance, not arrears William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh the hypocrisy. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You said it is hypocritical to provide the reliability of a quote like i did in the Exp. Usama b Zayd article. To you, its hypocritical because i said that the quote is unreliable while i didnt mention anything about the reliabiliy of the other articles which quote Tabari.
However, i have told you clearly before, here that i can tell you the reliability of certain quotes because they are famous, but not all quotes (because discussions on the reliability of the non famous quotes are hard to find). If you can find the views of scholars on the reliability of the other quotes in the articles, feel free to add their views. In General, you will find that people like Imam Shaffi accept the authenticity of the Maghazi (battles of Muhammad) but reject all verses in the Quran which promote peace and tolerance and also reject many peaceful quotes attributed to Muhammad, it is because these scholars believe in Naskh (abrogation). Imam Shaffi, and al-Zuhri reportedly viewed the content of al-Maghazi (mentioned by Ibn Ishaq) in a positive light, i can always go to all battle articles and talk about Imam Shaffi, and Al-Zuhri's view on the authenticity of the contents of the Maghazi in general. But i didnt do that, because whats the point? If you insist on adding the views of scholars on the authenticity of the battles/expeditions of muhammad, you should consider mentioning Imam Shaffi and al-Zuhri's view, and Ibn Qayyim also quoted a lot of Maghazi of Ibn Ishaq that he considered reliable --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, who asked you to offer your views of Imam Al-Shafi'i ? Have you seen anyone discuss Al-Shafi'i here ? Nobody, so stop beating around the bush. It's really clear and simple, you talked for long and misled many people into this "there is no such thing as hadith verification", but then I find out recently, just days after the incident, that you did include someone's views on the authenticity of one of al-Tabari's quotes, which is hypocritical.
Also, why did you reply on my talk page ? Didn't I express my position here ? Therefore I expect you to reply here not there. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So, what happened? Al-A tagged a pile of articles, presumably because he thought there were problems. Have I missed the follow-up on talk pages where he discussed what those problems were in detail, and attempted to resolve them? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@William, Al-A keeps removing my comments from his talk page. Nothing much happened. He just said he will buy some books about the biography of Muhammad, presumably to see if it matches with what i said in my articles--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Your claim: "In General, you will find that people like Imam Shaffi accept the authenticity of the Maghazi (battles of Muhammad) but reject all verses in the Quran which promote peace and tolerance and also reject many peaceful quotes attributed to Muhammad,[citation needed] it is because these scholars believe in Naskh (abrogation). Imam Shaffi, and al-Zuhri reportedly viewed the content of al-Maghazi (mentioned by Ibn Ishaq) in a positive light,[citation needed]" is unsourced. Please provide an RS to back it up.
21:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


  • Regarding shaffi endorsing killing non combatants see: http://www.webcitation.org/5zu3YZaDj pg.6 last paragraph on page starting: "...Regarding monks, two contradictory opinions are attributed", primary source: Shaffi, Kitab al-Umm v.4 pg. 253-254. These 4 Imams promoted extreme violence. Its scary and evil, killing non combatants is terrorism.
  • Regarding Shaffi's belief that peaceful version in the quran have been abrogated and no longer apply, see: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3n_P0Fztsn8C&pg=PA3 where it says "It was the jurist al-Shafi'i who developed the concept of naskh in such a way that the verse prescribing fighting (2:216) came to cancel out the significane of earlier, non violent interpretations of Jihad. "
  • I used to have the primary source about shaffi's views on naskh, but I lost it, i am sure it is in Kitab al-Umm, look it up.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding monks, two contradictory opinions are attributed
You yourself state that two contradictory opinions are attributed to him, which one is correct?
These 4 Imams promoted extreme violence
That's not correct, according to the majority of jurists (amongst whom are the 3 Imams: Ibn Hanbal, Abu Hanifa, Malik -- and we can add al-Shafi'i according to one of the opinions narrated to him), the Qur’ānic casus belli (justification of war) are restricted to aggression against Muslims and fitna—persecution of Muslims because of their religious belief.(Ahmed Al-Dawoody (2011), The Islamic Law of War: Justifications and Regulations, pp. 78-9. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230111608.) They hold that unbelief in itself is not the justification for war. These jurists therefore maintain that only combatants are to be fought; noncombatants such as women, children, clergy, the aged, the insane, farmers, serfs, the blind, and so on are not to be killed in war.(Ahmed Al-Dawoody (2011), The Islamic Law of War: Justifications and Regulations, pp. 78-9. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230111608.)
Regarding Shaffi's belief that peaceful version in the quran have been abrogated and no longer apply
The RS you provided talks only about one particular verse (2:216), and again anything that is related from him needs to be authentic, or at least, its authenticity should be assigned, so as to satisfy WP:MOS/Hadith.
In sum you did not provide any RS which state that al-Shafi'i considered all maghazi accounts to be authentic because of his theory on naskh.
21:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Shaffi said about Maghazi: "Whoever wishes to obtain a complete acquaintance with the early Muslim conquests, must borrow his information from Ibn Ishaq" source --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: lol that's still doesn't support your assertion that, "al-Shafi'i considered all maghazi accounts to be authentic because of his theory on naskh." + you need to show that these narrations are authentic, to help you, these particular reports of al-Shafi'i are found in وفيات الأعيان : 5 / 409 --- تاريخ مدينة دمشق : 60 / 117
But in any case, that still doesn't support your assertion that "al-Shafi'i considered all maghazi accounts to be authentic because of his theory on naskh."
23:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
"All"? Only an idiot would say all. That doesnt even sound believable, i never used that word--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


@Misconceptions2: In any case, that doesn't even support that "al-Shafi'i considered all maghazi accounts related by Ibn Ishaq to be authentic because of his theory on naskh." neither that this was due to his theory on naskh. 23:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I can do what your doing as well. You reply does not prove that the Moon is made out of cheese. Where does your sources claim that Water is made from sand? CounterTime, eEverything you have said so far first makes a baseless suggestion that I proposed something that I did not.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't twist your words, here's an exact quote of what you said previously in this thread, "In General, you will find that people like Imam Shaffi accept the authenticity of the Maghazi (battles of Muhammad) but reject all verses in the Quran which promote peace and tolerance and also reject many peaceful quotes attributed to Muhammad, it is because these scholars believe in Naskh (abrogation). Imam Shaffi, and al-Zuhri reportedly viewed the content of al-Maghazi (mentioned by Ibn Ishaq) in a positive light, i can always go to all battle articles and talk about Imam Shaffi, and Al-Zuhri's view on the authenticity of the contents of the Maghazi in general."
11:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

What is the purpose of this box?[edit]

@Misonceptions2, Eperoton, and Al-Andalusi: and others, what is the purpose of this box if List of expeditions of Muhammad already exists, and already serves the purpose of this box?

17:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I think the purpose is ease of navigation, similarly to campaign boxes such as Napoleonic Wars navigational boxes. Eperoton (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)