When Muhammad came down from the cave of Hira convinced—wrongly—that his terrifying encounters were divine, he did not at once become the confident founder of a new world religion. At first, he whispered his message in private, testing it on those who were financially or emotionally dependent on him: Khadija, Ali, Zayd, and a small circle around his house. Once he had that inner ring secured, he turned outward toward his clan and city.

The years 613–615 C.E. mark the shift from hidden experiments in “revelation” to public confrontation. This is the period Islamic writers portray as the noble moment when a gentle prophet bravely endured persecution from cruel pagans. In their telling, he spoke nothing but peaceful monotheism, suffered patiently, and responded to hatred with forbearance. The historical reality is sharper and far less flattering. From the beginning, his preaching was bound up with personal pride, family shame, and threats.

When he finally climbed the hill of Safa to announce his mission openly, he did not present the Gospel of Christ crucified and risen. He proclaimed himself the dividing line between salvation and destruction. He insulted his tribe’s gods in front of them, cursed members of his own family by name through “revelation,” allowed weak converts to be exposed to torture he would not share, and used promises of wealth and women as bargaining chips. At the same time, he began to mix spiritual threats with hints of physical slaughter. By the middle of this period, there were death threats in both directions: Meccan leaders angry at his provocations, and Muhammad promising, under the cloak of divine judgment, their eventual destruction.

This chapter traces that transition, exposing how the early preaching years already contained the seeds of the violence that would later explode in Medina. The myths of a purely persecuted, peaceful prophet disappear once we look at what he actually said and did.

Public Declaration on Safa Hill: Insults to Tribal Gods

After two or three years of private recruiting, Muhammad decided to confront his clan publicly. The classic account has him climb Safa, a rocky rise near the Kaaba, and call his relatives by their ancestral names. When the men assembled, he framed his speech with a war scenario: if he told them an enemy army was just behind this hill about to fall on them, would they believe him? They answered that they had never known him to lie.

This opening was not innocent. He deliberately harnessed the imagery of tribal alarm—the call to arms against a surprise attack—and applied it to himself. He wanted to convert his reputation for practical reliability in trade into unquestioned authority over their spiritual lives. Having gained their acknowledgment that they would trust his warning of a raid, he then claimed that he was warning them of a far worse disaster: a coming judgment from the god he called Allah.

He proceeded to single out individual clans and family lines, warning them that he could not save them from this doom unless they accepted his message. In effect, he told proud Quraysh men, in front of their peers, that their lineage and honor meant nothing unless they submitted to him. In a society where public shame was worse than death, this was an open challenge.

The insult sharpened when he attacked the gods surrounding the Kaaba. Instead of reasoning from the Torah and the Gospel that Jehovah alone is God, he simply denounced the idols as powerless and worthless, while offering no Scripture to support his claim and no miracles to prove his authority. He was not simply saying, “There is one true God.” The Jewish tribes already said that. He was saying, “There is one true God, and I am His messenger, and all your ancestral worship is an offense.” The emphasis fell on himself as the only safe path through the coming catastrophe.

From a biblical perspective, denouncing idolatry is right, but it must come from one who truly speaks for Jehovah and who leads people to Christ, the only Mediator. Muhammad had neither call nor message from the true God. He used the language of judgment to exalt himself. The result was predictable: his uncles and cousins, whose honor he had publicly wounded, reacted with anger and mockery. The story of Safa Hill is not the unveiling of a peaceful reformer. It is the beginning of a power struggle between a man claiming absolute spiritual authority and a clan that refused to give it.

Abu Lahab and the Family Schism

Standing among the men who answered Muhammad on Safa was his uncle Abu Lahab. In later Islamic memory, Abu Lahab becomes the symbol of stubborn unbelief, the uncle who “failed” to support the prophet. A small chapter of the Qur’an, sura 111, is devoted entirely to cursing him and his wife. Real history shows something more human and revealing: a family elder watching a dependent nephew tear the clan apart and responding in the only way he knew—harsh public rejection.

When Muhammad finished his speech on Safa, Abu Lahab is reported to have shouted something like, “May you perish! Is this why you called us here?” His exclamation expressed the frustration of a man who felt his time and the clan’s honor had been abused. Muhammad’s reply did not come as a private rebuke. He turned his uncle’s words into a permanent piece of “revelation”: “May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he.” The rest of the chapter promises that he and his wife will burn in a flame with twisted rope around her neck.

This is not how biblical prophets speak. When Elijah confronted Ahab, he denounced the king’s sin but did not produce a psalm solely to curse a single relative by name. The Psalms sometimes speak against groups of enemies, but they always frame that opposition in terms of Jehovah’s covenant and righteousness, not of one offended preacher venting his wrath. Muhammad’s response shows that he equated personal opposition with rebellion against God and used “revelation” to settle family scores.

The schism spread. Muhammad’s other uncle, Abu Talib, chose to protect him from physical harm without accepting his message. This placed Abu Talib in a precarious position: he had to shield a nephew who was insulting the gods of the city while still trying to maintain relations with other clans. Muhammad demanded ever-increasing loyalty, insisting that tribal bonds required them to defend him even if they did not fully agree. He turned natural family affection into a test of allegiance to his mission.

The rupture inside the family undermines the common claim that those who knew Muhammad best were immediately convinced of his truthfulness. Some, like Khadija and Ali, depended on him and fell in line. Others, like Abu Lahab and later other Quraysh elders, saw a relative whose visions produced division and shame. Instead of winning them with humble service and sound teaching from Scripture, Muhammad cursed them and presented their rejection as proof of their damnation.

From this point on, disagreement within the clan was no longer a family matter. It was framed as rebellion against Allah’s messenger. That shift—turning relatives into enemies of God—explains much of the bitterness and violence that followed.

Boycott and Starvation Tactics Against His Own Clan

Islamic tradition speaks at length about a “boycott” imposed on Muhammad’s clan, Banu Hashim, when Meccan leaders allegedly wrote a pact to cut off trade and marriage with them unless they surrendered Muhammad. Muslim storytellers highlight this as proof of noble suffering: they describe children crying from hunger in a valley while the prophet and his followers bear it patiently. This narrative is then used to support the broader claim that the Meccan years were a time of one-sided persecution.

A closer look shows a more tangled reality. Muhammad’s preaching had not only attacked idols; it had declared that salvation depended solely on allegiance to him. This naturally forced people to choose between loyalty to clan and loyalty to the new sect. Some of his followers urged their relatives to shun those who refused Muhammad. Early “revelations” derided wealthy Meccans who did not give him their loyalty and mocked their feasts. In other words, social pressure and boycott impulses were already coming from both directions.

When tension rose, the Quraysh leaders confronted the one man whose decision could defuse the crisis: Abu Talib. They did not initially ask for Muhammad’s death. They demanded that the clan restrain him or surrender him for judgment if he continued to insult their religion. Abu Talib refused both to kill his nephew and to hand him over. That refusal, more than doctrine alone, provoked economic retaliation. The leaders hoped that cutting off certain trade and marriage relations would pressure Banu Hashim to withdraw protection.

It is important to see what this means. Muhammad’s insistence on his own status had dragged his entire clan into conflict. Many of his relatives did not believe his message, but they were now punished economically because they chose to stand by him as kin. Instead of stepping back to spare them, he doubled down, continuing the confrontational preaching that had triggered the crisis. Filled with a sense of destiny, he allowed family members—who did not share his beliefs—to suffer rather than temper his claims.

The dramatic starvation scenes often repeated in modern Islamic literature lack independent confirmation. There is no external evidence of a city-wide famine focused on one clan. Even Muslim sources admit that some Meccans ignored the pact and secretly sent food to their relatives. Trade did not cease entirely; Mecca could not function without commerce. The more likely reality is that Banu Hashim experienced a period of tightened restrictions and strained relations, not total isolation from all supplies.

But even if we take the boycott framework at face value, the key moral point remains: it was Muhammad’s inflexibility and his willingness to tie clan honor to his own prophetic status that brought economic hardship on relatives who never accepted his message. That pattern, where his mission justifies suffering for others, will reappear many times as Islam spreads by conflict and economic pressure.

The “Protected” Slave Converts Tortured to Death

One of the most emotionally powerful elements in the standard Islamic story of Mecca is the suffering of converts from the lower classes and from slavery. Names like Bilal, Yasir, and Sumayyah are invoked as models of patience under torture. Their masters, angered by their new allegiance, allegedly beat, burned, and killed them for abandoning ancestral gods.

There is no reason to doubt that some slaves and poor individuals who followed Muhammad were badly mistreated. In a society where human beings were owned as property, a master who saw his slave join a controversial new sect might feel justified in inflicting pain. From the Bible’s standpoint, such cruelty is wicked. Jehovah sees the affliction of the oppressed and will judge those who abuse their power.

Yet the way these episodes are used in Islamic narrative needs careful examination. They are told as though Mecca as a whole was out to destroy all Muslims, while Muhammad and the wealthier converts were helpless to respond. The reality is that the ones who suffered most were the people least able to protect themselves: slaves and clients who had no strong clan backing. Men like Muhammad, Abu Bakr, and others who had family protection did not face the same level of physical danger.

Muhammad also did not consistently use his resources to free endangered slaves. Tradition credits Abu Bakr, not Muhammad, with purchasing Bilal’s freedom. Meanwhile Muhammad continued to benefit from the labor of slaves in his own household. The contrast is stark: he preached a message that endangered the most vulnerable, relied on stories of their suffering to strengthen his image as a persecuted prophet, yet did not embrace a consistent ethic of liberating the enslaved.

Calling these converts “protected” exposes a bitter irony. They were spiritually praised but socially expendable. Their courage under torture is used by later Muslims as proof of the faith’s truth, yet their deaths did not alter the structure of slavery in Muhammad’s community. When he later gained power, he did not ban slave ownership. He took slaves as booty, distributed them to followers, and used some as concubines. If his early experiences had truly taught him the horror of owning human beings, his later laws would reflect that. They do not.

At the same time, the suffering of these slaves became rhetorical fuel. Muhammad could point to their pain and say, “Look how they persecute us,” strengthening solidarity among his followers and framing all opposition as unjust. But because the harshest abuse fell on those from the lowest classes, while leading figures with tribal protection remained relatively safe, it is more accurate to say that he allowed the weak to bear the brunt of public anger while he continued to preach from a position of relative security.

A prophet truly sent by Jehovah, seeing that his weakest followers were being singled out, would either share their fate or take steps to remove them from danger, not sit above the fray and use their suffering as a badge of honor for his mission.

Muhammad’s Offer to Buy Silence with Women and Wealth

Islamic tradition often tells of Meccan leaders coming to Muhammad and offering him wealth, leadership, and women if he would stop attacking their gods. They portray him as nobly refusing such temptations, insisting that even if they placed the sun in his right hand and the moon in his left, he would not abandon his mission. This picture serves apologetic purposes: it portrays him as incorruptible and utterly focused on spiritual goals.

But even in those stories, there are hints that bargaining did happen, and not in only one direction. Some accounts mention Muhammad making proposals of his own, suggesting arrangements where each side would acknowledge the other’s practices in some alternating fashion. The famous chapter that says, “For you your religion and for me my religion,” reflects a moment when compromise with Meccan religion was on the table. Before the militant Medinan verses, Muhammad’s approach was not purely “take it or leave it.” He explored deals.

The deeper issue, however, is the way he used promises of future wealth and women to secure loyalty from his own followers and to quiet opponents. He spoke repeatedly of gardens, rivers, and sensual rewards in the afterlife, including ranks of women described as specially created companions. For warriors who later fought in his battles, those promises were supplemented by very concrete offers: a share of captured goods, slaves, and lands. Even in Mecca, he hinted that those who stood by him now would be rewarded when his mission prevailed.

In family disputes, reports indicate that he tried to reassure concerned relatives by suggesting that if they supported him, they would share power when Allah granted him victory. He knew the currency of his culture. Men in Mecca were moved by two basic incentives: access to wealth and access to women. Muhammad’s message did not crucify those desires; it redirected them. “Endure now, and you will be rewarded later,” both in this life and, more vividly, in the next.

From a Christian standpoint, this is utterly opposed to the Gospel. Christ calls His followers to deny themselves, take up their torture stake, and follow Him. He does not promise them harems in eternity or war booty on earth. He offers forgiveness of sins, fellowship with Jehovah, and future resurrection in a renewed earth under His righteous rule. When Muhammad dangled women and wealth in front of his audience—whether immediately or in Paradise—he showed that his god catered to the flesh.

So when Islamic writers claim that he refused all offers of wealth and women from the Meccan chiefs, we must answer clearly: he refused their particular offers because he had his own, much grander plan for obtaining women and wealth through religious authority and, later, war. The fact that he did not sell his message for one set of bribes does not make him pure. It shows that he wanted to own the entire system of reward himself rather than be bought off by someone else.

First Death Threats—From Both Sides

The standard Islamic story of the Meccan period emphasizes patience and nonviolence. Muhammad, we are told, never raised a hand against anyone and ordered his followers to endure suffering without retaliation. Only in Medina, after years of persecution, did fighting supposedly become permitted. On this telling, any language of violence in the Qur’an belongs to a later stage and has no roots in the earliest preaching.

But even the Meccan sources preserve disturbing statements that show a very different tone. When opposition in Mecca hardened, Muhammad is reported to have told his opponents that he had come to them “with slaughter.” The phrase is brief but revealing. A messenger of Jehovah might indeed warn of future judgment by God, but he does not describe himself as bringing “slaughter” to his own kinsmen. Yet Muhammad’s words blur the line between divine action and his own future military campaigns. He suggests that those who reject him will face not only hellfire after death but also crushing defeat on earth.

At this stage he lacked the means to carry out physical violence, so much of the threat came through his “revelations.” He pronounced specific curses, predicted humiliation in this world and torment in the next, and spoke of a coming day when the believers would laugh at those who mocked them now. His talk of slaughter was wrapped in prophetic language, but the emotion behind it was the same bitterness that had cursed Abu Lahab by name.

Meccan leaders, in turn, began to speak of killing him. This was not an unprovoked desire to murder a harmless preacher. They saw a man dividing families, insulting their ancestors, predicting their destruction, and rallying some of their own slaves and relatives into a tight band around him. In a society where political and religious unity were intertwined, such a disruptive figure looked dangerous. Discussions of assassination began to surface, though they were delayed by tribal norms and Abu Talib’s protection.

The result was an atmosphere saturated with implied violence. Muhammad, though not yet wielding a sword, used words of slaughter and hellfire. His enemies talked in council about ending his life. Followers and opponents alike looked toward the future expecting that blood would be shed. The later battles at Badr, Uhud, and the trench did not appear from nowhere. They grew out of the escalation that began as soon as Muhammad publicly tied rejection of his message to inevitable destruction.

A true prophet of Jehovah may indeed predict wars and judgments, but he does so while calling people to the true God and offering a way of peace through repentance and faith. Muhammad offered no crucified and risen Savior, only himself and a god who would vindicate him. Under that banner, every insult against him became grounds for divine—and eventually human—vengeance.

The years 613–615 therefore are not simply a story of a noble teacher being mocked. They are the years in which Muhammad’s message hardened into a demand for total obedience, in which family love turned into schism, in which economic pressure and selective cruelty fell on the weakest, and in which both sides began to speak in the language of death. The cave had produced a tormented preacher; Safa and the streets of Mecca now revealed that the religion forming around him would be shaped by pride, resentment, and the willingness to sacrifice others for the sake of his mission.

You May Also Enjoy

The Responsibility of the Church: Equipping the Brothers and Sisters to Resist the Islamic Indoctrination of Western Youth

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS