He said: “As for the Messenger’s ﷺ tapping the hands of Bint Hubayra, the report does not state that he struck her solely because of the rings, nor does it say that those rings were of gold.” I reply: This statement is baseless. With the two extra phrases cited above, the hadith is an explicit proof that the blow was indeed on account of the rings, as shown by the Prophet’s ﷺ stern warning immediately after: “Would it please you that Allah put rings of fire on your hand?!” I am convinced that had Ibn Hazm — may Allah have mercy on him — known of these two additions, he would not have hesitated to declare rings forbidden for women, treating them as an exception to the general hadith permitting gold, because this report is more specific; such an approach accords with his own legal method and is correct. This question is one of many examples illustrating the importance of the method that, to the best of my knowledge, we alone have adopted in our time: pursuing every additional wording found in the various transmissions, gathering them, attaching them to the original text, and rigorously verifying their authenticity. Praise be to Allah, who has guided us to this; without His guidance we would never have been guided. (1) Reported by al-Qasim al-Sarqasti, Gharib al-Hadith 2/76.