How can the singing of a woman be forbidden, even if the words are respectful and there is no submissiveness in her speech, when you cite as evidence for the prohibition the listening to a musical instrument with the singer's voice, while the Prophet commanded a female singer to sing and gave her a tray to beat upon so that Aisha could hear her singing?

The Hadith that mentions the slave girl (qaynah) into whose nostrils Satan breathed, was narrated with an authentic chain of transmission. However, the phrase: "So he gave her a tray" (fa-a‘ṭāhā ṭabaqan), from which the questioner understood that the Prophet gave her a tray to beat upon while she sang, is anomalous. Even if it were authentic, it is not an explicit text in that regard; rather, it could mean a tray of food, or it occurred on an occasion like Eid.

Furthermore, this Hadith does not indicate the permissibility for men to listen to the singing of slave girls, because it is a specific incident (wāqi‘at ‘ayn) that does not carry general applicability, and it is not permissible to equate the Prophet with anyone else. A specific incident, if it allows for several interpretations, cannot be used as proof. This applies to the story of the black slave girl who vowed to beat the drum (duff), where the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, permitted her to beat the duff on the condition that she had made a vow, because a vow concerning something permissible does not necessarily require fulfillment.

The Prophet's statement, peace and blessings be upon him: "Satan has breathed into her nostrils," indicates that the default ruling for singing is prohibition, and that it is permissible in specific situations as a concession based on a particular دليل. Interpreting this Hadith in a way that might contradict its general meaning or apparent sense would be a reconciliation between it and other proofs regarding the prohibition of musical instruments and women's singing in the presence of men.