by Vernas Hefzy
From The 100 to the Constitution of Medina and the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah: A Name Associated with State Leadership and the Making of History, Not Political Ridicule
Dear President Trump,
Some names are not fit to be mocked, because they are too great to be confined to a joke and too profound to be reduced to a passing moment in an election speech. The name “Muhammad” is one of those names that do not merely appear on documents, but reside in the heart, flow through memory from one generation to the next, and carry within their letters stories of faith, history, and belonging.
Muhammad lives within my own name, and there is a little boy in my family who bears the same name. I look upon him with love and pride, just as millions of Arab families look upon their children who carry this name—not as a sequence of letters spoken by our tongues, but as a legacy passed down through generations of hearts and an extension of a collective consciousness shaped over centuries. When I say that I am proud to bear this name, I am not speaking of letters added to my identity card, but of a connection to a living history and a meaning that transcends the individual to become part of a nation’s memory.
Dear President Trump, politics may give you broad platforms, and elections may offer you opportunities to use words to win over crowds. But history is not measured by the noise of political platforms, and the significance of names cannot be reduced to passing remarks. Muhammad, whose name is associated with the faith of millions, was no incidental figure in the historical record. He was a figure who left a profound religious, political, and civilizational impact: he led a community, organized its affairs, engaged in negotiations, and concluded agreements that remain part of the study of Islamic history.
I take pride in my own name, in the little Muhammad in my family, and in every Arab household that sees in this name love, dignity, and a continuation of collective memory. Names rooted in the hearts of peoples cannot be diminished by mockery, nor can their significance be erased by a passing remark. A joke may be brief, Mr. President, but history is too long for you to erase, and memory runs too deep for your mockery to reach.
Muhammad Ranked First: The Assessment of an American Author
In his renowned book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, published in 1978, American author Michael H. Hart placed the Prophet Muhammad first on a list of one hundred figures he considered the most influential in human history.
This choice did not come from a Muslim author defending his faith, but from an American writer who sought to assess the historical influence of notable figures. Hart concluded that Muhammad combined religious influence with worldly influence, which he regarded as one of the principal reasons for his selection.
The significance of this reference lies not in ranking historical figures or comparing their relative worth, but in the fact that Muhammad’s life and influence have been studied and analyzed beyond the Muslim world. His impact has not been solely a religious matter confined to his followers; it has also been a subject of writings examining the course of human history.
This raises an important question: How can a name associated with such far-reaching influence be reduced to a joke about how common it is in the Middle East?
Muhammad: A Political Leader Who Governed a Community, Negotiated, and Concluded Agreements
Muhammad was not only a religious leader; he was also a political leader who governed the community of Medina, helped organize relations among its various components, built alliances, and dealt with surrounding powers in an environment marked by conflict and complex balances of power.
One of the most notable historical sources illustrating this dimension is the Constitution of Medina, a document associated with regulating relations among the components of Medinan society, including Muslims and Jewish groups. It addressed matters relating to rights, obligations, cooperation, and shared responsibilities.
The document reveals an aspect of political leadership during that period. The governance of the community was not limited to the relationship between a leader and his followers; it also extended to organizing relations among different groups, each with its own affiliations, interests, and obligations.
Managing relations among these groups was part of the challenge of building a political community in an environment where tribal ties, religious affiliations, and alliances were closely intertwined. The Constitution of Medina therefore represents an important reference point in the study of the emergence of political and social organization in early Muslim society.
These events must, of course, be read within their historical context, without directly imposing the concepts of the modern state upon them or overlooking the complexities and conflicts that characterized that period.
The Constitution of Medina: Regulating Relations with Jewish Communities
Dear President Trump, history does not reduce Muhammad’s experience to its religious dimension alone. It also contains evidence of his management of relations with different groups in Medina, including Jewish communities.
The Constitution of Medina addressed the organization of relations among the community’s various components and set out reciprocal obligations and responsibilities relating to communal security and the organization of public affairs. It is one of the principal texts scholars draw upon when studying the political and social relations of Medina during the early period of Islamic history.
Relations between Muslims and Jewish groups in Medina were not uniform or static. They included understandings and agreements, but later also witnessed tensions and conflicts involving certain groups. A fair historical reading therefore requires these events to be examined in their details and contexts, without generalization or selective interpretation.
The central point, however, is that governing a community composed of different groups was part of the Prophet Muhammad’s political experience, and that dealing with religious difference was intertwined with questions of security, alliances, and political obligations.
These historical events offer a more comprehensive picture than one that attempts to reduce Muhammad’s name to an election joke. They present us with a leadership experience that involved addressing the affairs of society, relations among different groups, and political understandings within a complex historical setting.
The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah: When Negotiation Became a Means of Managing Conflict
One of the clearest examples of this dimension is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah in 628 CE, when the Prophet Muhammad concluded an agreement with Quraysh that established a truce between the two sides. The agreement demonstrated the importance of negotiation and conflict management, even when circumstances required accepting a settlement that did not immediately fulfill every demand.
The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah marked an important turning point in the history of relations between the Muslims and Quraysh. It has since been cited as an example in discussions of political negotiation and conflict management within their historical context.
Here we see a leader who did not treat conflict as a perpetual confrontation without end, but recognized that agreements could open new paths and reshape relations between opposing parties.
This is not an attempt to impose modern political concepts upon ancient history. It is a reading of clear historical events: leading a community, managing relationships, concluding agreements, and making decisions with political and strategic consequences.
Muhammad was not merely a name in circulation. He was a historical figure associated with leading a community, shaping agreements, and establishing a political entity that left a lasting mark on history.
The Problem Is Not the Name Muhammad, but the Reduction of Peoples to Stereotypes
Muhammad is among the most widely used names in Muslim societies, and it holds deep religious and emotional significance for Muslims. Yet respect for the name should not depend on agreement with Muslim beliefs, just as respecting any name does not require adopting the beliefs of the person who bears it.
The issue is simpler and more fundamental: every person has a name, an identity, and dignity, and no one should be reduced to a stereotype merely because of their geographical, cultural, or religious background.
The Middle East is not a single, homogeneous population, and its peoples cannot be reduced to one name, one language, or one political position. It is a vast region of diverse cultures, religions, and historical experiences. Any discourse that ignores this diversity fails to understand reality as it is.
Trump has every right to criticize Iran and the policies of its government, or to challenge the positions of any country in the region. Political criticism, however, is fundamentally different from mocking names that form part of the identity of millions of people.
Criticize governments as you wish, and debate policies on the basis of facts. But do not confuse political disagreement with contempt for cultural and religious identity.
Mr. Trump, a Nation’s Strength Is Not Measured by Its Ability to Mock
The office of the American president gives its occupant global influence, and his words attract attention far beyond the borders of the United States. What may appear to be an election joke before a domestic audience can therefore be perceived elsewhere as a dismissal of other cultures or a reduction of entire peoples to stereotypes.
Political power does not mean that every statement becomes acceptable simply because it comes from the leader of a major world power. Freedom of expression also does not relieve public figures of the responsibility to consider the impact of their words, particularly when those words touch upon the religious and cultural identities of hundreds of millions of people.
There is no need to exaggerate the meaning of every statement, but neither are we obliged to treat every instance of mockery as a passing matter unworthy of discussion. The distinction is clear: criticizing a political position is one thing; using a personal name as a vehicle for generalization and ridicule is another.
Political discourse would be better served by confronting genuine disagreements with arguments and evidence rather than replacing serious discussion with jokes that reduce others to their identities.
History Outlasts Passing Statements
Dear President Trump, the name Muhammad does not need your endorsement, just as its significance to Muslims does not depend on your opinion of it. But when the name becomes a subject of mockery, we have every right to remind you that history extends far beyond the election cycle, and historical figures cannot be reduced to passing comments.
Between an American author who placed Muhammad at the top of his list of the most influential figures in history, a document that regulated relations among the components of Medinan society, and an agreement that established a truce with Quraysh, there lies a considerable distance between serious historical study and a passing political joke.
The point is not to prevent anyone from disagreeing or criticizing, but to place matters in their proper context. Governments can be challenged, leaders can be held accountable for their policies, and religions and ideas can be discussed without turning people’s names into instruments of disparagement.
Ultimately, a name’s worth is not measured by how common it is, just as a person’s worth is not measured by their religious or cultural background. What deserves to endure in political discourse is not the laughter a speaker elicits from an audience, but the ideas he presents, the evidence supporting his arguments, and the respect he shows others.
Dear President Trump, mockery may be a quick way to provoke laughter, but it is neither proof of historical knowledge nor a substitute for understanding peoples and cultures. Muhammad is a name associated with a religious message, political leadership, and an enduring historical experience. Reducing it to a joke changes none of the historical facts; instead, it raises a question about the limits of political discourse when it addresses the identities of others.