religion—let alone his conduct—can be set against the statements of Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbās, Jābir, and others like them.

Anyone who cites the conduct of someone like ‘Abd Allāh as religious evidence in such a matter must likewise cite Mu‘āwiya’s fighting against ‘Alī, Ibn al-Zubayr’s fighting during the division, and similar actions that people of knowledge and religion ought not to include among the proofs of religion and Islamic law. This applies especially to devotees, ascetics, and those concerned with spiritual realities: they should not abandon the path of those Companions renowned for devotion and asceticism to follow the path of others.

How excellent are the words of Hudhayfa, may Allah be pleased with him: “O company of Quran reciters, remain steadfast and follow the path of those before you. By Allah, if you follow them, you will have taken a great lead; but if you turn to the right or left, you will have strayed far indeed.”

Moreover, what ‘Abd Allāh ibn Ja‘far did took place in his own home. People did not gather at his house for it, and he listened only to a slave girl he owned. Nor did he consider it an act of religion or obedience; rather, he regarded it as idle amusement. This resembles what some affluent people do when they listen to their slave girls singing in their homes, and similar things. How can the two be compared? That would be so even if his conduct could properly be cited as evidence—how much more so when it is no proof at all!

He said: “Similar reports are transmitted from ‘Umar and others concerning camel-driving chants.”

I say: As for camel-driving chants, agreement on their permissibility has already been mentioned, so they cannot be cited as evidence in