I don't buy this 'relentless persecution' narrative because it was written by the victors, and those writing history rarely portray themselves in a bad light. That's not a Muslim problem; that's a human problem. Why would the Muslims sit there and take it for 13 years if they're so rich to begin with? Why didn't they leave earlier? Why didn't they pay mercenaries to fight back against the Quraysh to begin with? Realistically there's not much reason to believe the Muslims sat their enduring violent persecution because 'they were in the right'; nor is there reason to believe the Muslim portrayal of the Banu Quraysh is honest or impartial. After all the Quraysh are portrayed to be after Muhammad solely because he threatens their ability to make money. While undoubtedly that would be an influence, the Muslim narrative gives the impression that the Quraysh and other Meccans had no sincerely-held religious beliefs of their own. After all why would they? They're just 'statue worshippers'.
The thing about the Muslim narrative is I think there is
some truth to it which is why people believe it so readily. Here's what I think really happened.
Muhammad, a member of the Banu Quraysh, grew up worshipping the Arab gods, including Allah. One day he went to a cave, seeking solitude. There he may or may not have had an experience. This could have been caused by ingesting a hallucinogen, sustaining some kind of injury or be the result of some fever; it could have been genuine. Regardless, he was convinced he was right. He had been singled out to bring the word that Allah was the only true god in the pantheon; all the others were false. He came back to Mecca espousing this creed; a bizarre combination of Allah worship mixed with the Christian and Judaism too. The Quraysh at first thought he was a bit odd but since he was family they tolerated it. As time went on, Muhammad got worse. He started decrying the beliefs of his fellow Meccans insulting them and generally behaving like a bit of a jerk. At this point the Quraysh & other Meccans wanted to step in and have a word but they were stopped because Muhammad was protected by the head of the clan (his uncle, Abu Talib - who was willing to let his own children embrace Islam) who was happy to let him do his thing. Hardly the action of an intolerant man who would have encouraged the same attitude from his subordinates, yes?
And because Muhammad was, as a result, a member of the ruling class.
His demagoguery attracted a few followers at first, then more when they realised nothing was being done to stop him - but turned most people against him. The Quraysh and other Meccans got fed up as Muhammad slandered their beliefs, their traditions and their ancestors as a result. And he was allowed to do this for over 10 years. That doesn't sound like the reaction of an intolerant society or ruling class, does it?
To make matters worse; Muhammad was claiming the temple to their gods belonged to
his religion and they needed to get out immediately. So, as described in the Hadith, other members of the Quraysh asked Abu Talib to get his nephew under control and calm him down. That didn't work as Talib refused to do anything. So they asked Muhammad directly: 'stop defaming our gods, our religions and our forefathers'. He didn't. So the other members of the Quraysh boycotted Muhammad.
Muhammad only left Mecca because Abu Talib died; ending the protection Muhammad enjoyed. The other members of the Quraysh could not now be restrained in returning in kind the intolerance Muhammad had subjected them and their beliefs to for over a decade. The Muslims weren't driven out. They left because they knew the consequences of their actions were about to descend upon them. Even if that
did involve violence, this is not war.
War is two sides fighting one another. You're saying one of those sides actively did not fight for the first thirteen years so there can't have been a war.
The truth is the Muslims had settled in Medina beyond the reach of the Quraysh. The Meccans only put an army in the field after the Muslims launched an unprovoked attack on their trade caravans. Harming & killing innocent merchants and, yes, threatening their revenue.
There's also the fact that Muhammad ordered a campaign against the city of Ta'if which had never gone out of their way to harm the Muslims. They did this because Ta'if's elders rejected Muhammad's attempts to convert them to Islam and had him chased out of the city with children throwing rocks. They did this partly because they feared the wrath of the Quraysh, but probably also because Muhammad's reputation as a rabble rouser and a demagogue must have preceded him.
Let's be real. If the Meccans had really wanted to exterminate the entire Muslim community they could have done so at any point in the
thirteen YEARS between Muhammad's 'revelation' and his departure for Medina. The Quraysh could not have stopped a flash mob beating or stoning Muhammad to death.
This narrative is only spun to make the early Muslims seem all the more noble for
- 'Surviving' it; and
- For not retaliating against the Meccans in kind (though they did against the Banu Qurayza).
There's no reason to believe any claims of attempted genocide by the Meccans. This is a spun narrative designed by the victors to further vilify their enemies and lend their hostile takeover of Mecca and forced Islamisation of Arabia seem all the more incredible & morally justified.
