Nor does this conflict with the view endorsed by Ibn Jarir (21/4): that the verse is general, encompassing every form of speech that diverts from the path of Allah and whose listening Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. He said: “Singing and associationism are among these.” Ibn Kathir inclined to this view in his Tafsir, as did Ibn al-Qayyim in Ighathat al-Lahfan (1/240–241).

What has preceded provides a forceful rebuttal of Ibn Hazm’s statement in Risalat al-Malahi (p. 97): that it has not been established from any of the Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, that they interpreted the verse as referring to singing. He said: “Rather, it is only the view of certain exegetes whose statements constitute no proof.” Besides this statement being invalidated by what has preceded, his own practice in al-Muhalla contradicts it, for he cited the aforementioned reports from Ibn Masud, Ibn Abbas, and other Successors, without declaring them weak. He merely said: “No one’s authority is proof apart from that of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him.”

We say: this is a word of truth by which falsehood is intended, for he did not cite anything from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, that contradicts their interpretation. He then claimed that other Companions and Successors had differed from them. Yet this is like his previous claim, for he did not mention a single contrary report; had he possessed one, he would have hastened to produce it.

He then argued that the verse describes an act whose perpetrator is an unbeliever. We say: this is true, but it does not negate that a Muslim may be held accountable in proportion to the degree to which he possesses that attribute—for example, being distracted by songs from the Quran. A detailed discussion of this is found in Ighathat al-Lahfan.