Abu Dawud

Benefits and Issues:
The original narration is as follows: the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had a silver ring made and then removed it. Thus, the narration about removing the ring when entering the toilet is weak. However, etiquette and respect demand that a ring or book, etc., in which the name of Allah is inscribed, should not be taken into the toilet. The reason for the above-mentioned chain being considered objectionable is that Hammam, in narrating the wording of the hadith, has contradicted the trustworthy narrators and has mixed the text of this narration with the text of another hadith.

Commentary:
This narration is weak, rather it is munkar (denounced).
The authentic narration is as follows: The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had a ring made of silver, but then he removed it. See: (Sunan Abu Dawood, Book of Purification, Chapter: The Ring on which is the Name of Allah and Entering the Toilet with it, Hadith: 19)
Therefore, regarding whether the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) actually used to remove his ring when entering the toilet or not, there is no explicit authentic narration on this matter. However, etiquette and respect demand that a ring or book, etc., on which is written the name of Allah, should not be taken into the toilet.

Explanation:
1:
He used to do this because “Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah” was inscribed on it.
It is understood from this that when going to the toilet to relieve oneself, one should be careful not to have with oneself anything that could be disrespected,
for example, the names of Allah and His Messenger, or Qur’anic verses, etc.

Note:
(Regarding the chain (al-Zuhri from Anas), this is not the original narration; rather, the original is that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam had a silver ring made,
then discarded it.
In this narration, either, according to Imam Abu Dawud, Hammam made a mistake,
or, according to al-Albani, the reason for its weakness is the ‘an‘anah of Ibn Jurayj, who was a mudallis;
he did not hear directly from al-Zuhri and narrated it with ‘an‘anah.
For details, see:
Da‘if Abi Dawud, no. 4)

Lexical Explanation:
«بَابُ آدَابِ قَضَاءِ الْحَاجَةِ» Relieving oneself; this is an allusion to urination and defecation.
«اَلْخَلَآءَ» With a fatha on the “kha” and an extended alif; it means an empty place or vacant location. Later, it came to be frequently used for the place of relieving oneself. It is also called “bayt al-khala” (toilet), because apart from the times of relieving oneself, this place generally remains empty, and also because it is called “khala” (emptiness) as it provides seclusion and privacy for a person.
«وَضَعَ خَاتَمَهُ» He would remove his ring and put it aside, because «محمد رسول الله» was inscribed on it. The intent here is to warn and alert that such items on which Allah’s name is written should be kept away from filthy places.
«وَھُوَ مَعْلُوْلٌ» It is considered defective because Hammam narrated this report from Ibn Jurayj, and he narrates from al-Zuhri, whereas Ibn Jurayj did not hear this narration from al-Zuhri directly, but rather heard it from al-Ziyad ibn Sa‘d from al-Zuhri, and the wording is also different. The wording is: The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had a silver ring made for himself, then he removed it.

Benefit:
This narration is weak in its chain of transmission. Imam Abu Dawud has declared it to be munkar (rejected); he states that the narrator Hammam made an error in it. However, etiquette and respect demand that one should not knowingly enter the toilet or other impure and filthy places with any item on which the beautiful names of Allah or verses of the Noble Qur’an are written.