Did the companions say Ya Muhammad on the day of Al Yamamah?

Those who defend practices of idolatry often grasp at questionable evidence to justify their shirk. For example, some argue that the companions invoked Prophet Muhammad at the battle of Al Yamamah, using this as proof that deceased figures have an omniscient, godlike ability to hear prayers from all places and provide aid. 

The response to this argument was outlined by Abu Butayn [d.1282AH] in his book Ta’sees al Taqdees p.149 where he said:

والحكاية الأولى أن هذا كان شعارهم في الحرب، لم يقل أنهم كانوا يستغيثون به في الحرب، ولا أنهم يدعونه، بل قال: هذا [شعارهم في الحرب. فلا شبهة لك فيه لأنهم كانوا يستعملون الشعار في الحرب باسم أو كلمة ليعرف بعضهم بعضا كما روي أن شعارهم في بعض غزواتهم “حم لا ينصرون” وفي بعضها أمت أمت

The first account states that this was their battle cry during war. It does not state that they were crying out for his aid during battle, nor that they were supplicating to him. Rather, it states: this was their battle cry during war. So there is no doubt concerning it, because they used to employ battle cries during war in the name of, or words by which they would recognize one another. It is narrated that one of their battle cries during some of their expeditions was “Ha Meem, they will not be given victory” and during others, “Amit, Amit [Put to Death Put to Death].”

In addition to this response, it can be said that The “ya” is being used as an exclamatory phrase, not as a vocative for calling or invoking. It is like saying “Waa Muhammadaah” – an exclamation of grief or pain – rather than calling on Muhammad. Those familiar with Arabic grammar and rhetoric know there is a difference between using “ya” for invocation versus for exclamation.

This battle was against someone falsely claiming to be a prophet. Therefore, it made sense for their battle cry to affirm the truth of Prophet Muhammad. So they exclaimed phrases like “Waa Muhammadaah” or “Yaa Muhammadaah” to champion his cause against the false claimant. These were exclamations of support, not actual invocations or calls for help/deliverance.

And if we assume it is the vocative “Yaa” then it is being used to bring alive the memory of the person (Muhammad) into one’s heart/mind, but does not ask anything of them. It is like when praying and sending blessings on Muhammad – he is imagined and addressed, but not actually present nor asked for direct help. This does not qualify as polytheism since one is not supplicating or worshipping the imagined figure. And the context of the position the companions were in at this moment, as addressed above, makes perfect sense to have “Yaa Muhammadaah” or “Waa Muhammadaah” as their battle cry.

Ibn Taymiyyah said in his book Iqtidaa’ Siraat al Mustaqeem 2/319:

قوله : ( يا محمد يا نبي الله ) هذا وأمثاله نداء ، يطلب به استحضار المنادى في القلب ، فيخاطب المشهود بالقلب ، كما يقول المصلي : ( السلام عليك أيها النبي ورحمة الله وبركاته ) والإنسان يفعل مثل هذا كثيرا ، يخاطب من يتصوره في نفسه وإن لم يكن في الخارج من يسمع الخطاب

Saying ‘O Muhammad, O Messenger of God,’ and the like of it, is an invocation by which the heart brings to mind the one being called. So he addresses the one envisioned in his heart, just as the one praying says: ‘Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and the mercy of God and His blessings.’ And a person often does something like this, addressing one whom he imagines in his soul, even if externally there is no one hearing his words.

Finally, the Isnad for this report is terrible. It can be located in Ibn Jarir al Tabari’s Tarikh 3/293:

كتب إلي السري، عن شعيب، عن سيف، عَنِ الضَّحَّاكِ بْنِ يَرْبُوعٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ رَجُلٍ مِنْ بَنِي سُحَيْمٍ قَدْ شَهِدَهَا مَعَ خَالِدٍ، قَالَ: لَمَّا اشْتَدَّ الْقِتَالُ- وَكَانَتْ يَوْمَئِذٍ سِجَالا إِنَّمَا تَكُونُ مَرَّةً عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَمَرَّةً عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ- فَقَالَ خَالِدٌ: أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ امْتَازُوا لِنَعْلَمَ بَلاءَ كُلِّ حَيٍّ، وَلِنَعْلَمَ مِنْ أَيْنَ نُؤْتَى! فَامْتَازَ أَهْلُ الْقُرَى وَالْبَوَادِي، وَامْتَازَتِ الْقَبَائِلُ من اهل البادية واهل الحاضر، فَوَقَفَ بَنُو كُلِّ أَبٍ عَلَى رَايَتِهِمْ، فَقَاتَلُوا جَمِيعًا، فَقَالَ أَهْلُ الْبَوَادِي يَوْمَئِذٍ: الآنَ يَسْتَحِرُّ الْقَتْلُ فِي الأَجْزَعِ الأَضْعَفِ، فَاسْتَحَرَّ الْقَتْلُ فِي أَهْلِ الْقُرَى، وَثَبَتَ مُسَيْلِمَةُ، وَدَارَتْ رَحَاهُمْ عَلَيْهِ، فَعَرَفَ خَالِدٌ أنَّهَا لا تَرْكُدُ إِلا بِقَتْلِ مُسَيْلِمَةَ، وَلَمْ تَحْفَلْ بَنُو حَنِيفَةَ بِقَتْلِ مَنْ قُتِلَ مِنْهُمْ ثُمَّ بَرَزَ خَالِدٌ، حَتَّى إِذَا كَانَ أَمَامَ الصَّفِّ دَعَا إِلَى الْبِرَازِ وَانْتَمَى، وَقَالَ: أَنَا ابْنُ الْوَلِيدِ الْعود، أَنَا ابْنُ عَامِرٍ وَزَيْدٍ! وَنَادَى بِشِعَارِهِمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ، وَكَانَ شِعَارُهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ: يَا مُحَمَّدَاهُ!

The problems in this chain are obvious to any beginner level student in ilm al hadith. Sayf b. Umar al Tameemi is a denounced narrator who was abandoned and accused of heresy. Al Dhahaak b. Yarbu’ is an unreliable narrator and is from the unknown individuals that only Saif narrates from. The man from Bani Suhaym is also unknown. Each one of these flaws and disparagements weakens the hadith and is not useful as proof.

And Allah knows best