for Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him—states in Ibtāl al-Taḥlīl (pp. 20–21, Kurdī ed.):

“Perhaps the istihlāl mentioned in the ḥadīth comes only through corrupt interpretations. If people were to deem these matters lawful while still believing that the Messenger ﷺ had forbidden them, they would be unbelievers and would no longer belong to his community. On the other hand, were they to acknowledge that these things are forbidden, it is unlikely that they would be punished by metamorphosis, as happens to others who persist in such sins, nor would it have been said of them, ‘they will deem them lawful,’ for the one who deems a thing lawful is the person who partakes of it convinced of its permissibility.

“It therefore seems that their istihlāl of wine lies in calling it by another name, as the ḥadīth itself indicates: they drink prohibited beverages but refuse to call them wine. Their istihlāl of musical instruments rests on the notion that instruments of amusement are nothing more than the hearing of a pleasant sound, which in their view is not forbidden—just like the songs of birds. Their istihlāl of silk and its varieties is based on the assumption that it is lawful for combatants; having heard that many scholars allow wearing it during battle, they extend that license to every other situation.

“These three misinterpretations occur among the very three groups about whom Ibn al-Mubārak—may Allah have mercy on him—said:

Has any but kings, corrupt scholars, and their monks
Ever brought ruin upon the faith?

“It is clear that such pretexts will avail their proponents nothing before Allah, now that the Messenger ﷺ has conveyed the message and spelled out the prohibition of these matters in terms that leave no room for excuse, as is well known in its proper sources.”