Once it is understood that commands, prohibitions, promises of reward, and threats of punishment concern deliberate listening, not merely hearing, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and Ibn ‘Umar were simply passing by, not deliberately listening. Likewise, Ibn ‘Umar, when accompanying the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and Nāfi‘, when accompanying Ibn ‘Umar, were merely hearing, not deliberately listening. Neither was therefore required to cover his ears.

The second point: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, covered his ears only as an added precaution, so that he would not hear anything at all. This shows that avoiding hearing it is better than hearing it, even though merely hearing it entails no sin. Had the sound been permissible, he would not have covered his ears to avoid hearing something permissible. Rather, his covering his ears so as not to hear it—even though merely hearing it was not forbidden—indicates that refraining from deliberate listening is all the more appropriate. Thus, this provides stronger evidence for prohibiting deliberate listening than for permitting it.

The third point: Even assuming that deliberate listening is impermissible, if he and his companion had both covered their ears, they would not have known when the sound had ceased, so that the one being followed could uncover his ears.

The fourth point: It is not known whether the companion had reached puberty or was still a child below that age. Children are allowed forms of play that adults are not.

The fifth point: A shepherd’s pipe does not stir the emotions like the flute fashioned by someone other than a shepherd. Even if permission to hear it were assumed, this would not necessarily entail permission for what has been described and its accompanying sounds, which affect the soul as potent wine does.