“…Had it been unlawful, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would never have allowed Ibn ʿUmar to hear it, nor would Ibn ʿUmar have allowed Nāfiʿ to hear it. Rather, the Prophet ﷺ simply disliked whatever does not serve as a means of drawing closer to Allah—just as he disliked eating while reclining, and the like. Therefore, if that sound were actually forbidden, the Prophet’s ﷺ response would not have been limited to blocking his own ears; he would have commanded its abandonment and prohibited it outright.”

I say: May Allah pardon Ibn Ḥazm, for several points escaped him—points that should not have eluded a scholar of his stature.

First: He failed to distinguish between samʿ (mere, involuntary hearing) and istimāʿ (intentional, attentive listening). He treated the first as though it were the second, which is a manifest linguistic, Qur’anic, and Sunnah-based error. Accordingly, Ibn Taymiyyah, commenting on the ḥadith of ʿĀʾishah mentioned earlier, said:

“There is nothing in the report of the two young girls to indicate that the Prophet ﷺ intentionally listened to them. Command and prohibition apply to intentional listening, not to mere hearing—just as rulings on sight concern the intention to look, not what is perceived unintentionally. The same holds for smelling fragrance: a pilgrim in iḥrām is only forbidden to purposefully inhale it; if he smells it unintentionally, there is no sin. The same principle governs all prohibited acts involving the five senses—hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch. The divine commands and prohibitions relate to what the servant deliberately intends and does; whatever befalls him without choice carries neither command nor prohibition.”

This explanation has been applied to the ḥadith of Ibn ʿUmar… He cited it, for some people say—assuming the report is authentic (1)—that Ibn ʿUmar did not tell Nāfiʿ to plug his ears. The reply is that Ibn ʿUmar was not intentionally listening; he was only hearing, and there is no sin in that. The Prophet ﷺ merely shifted aside in search of