Question: In the lexical book Lisân-ul-‘Arab, the meaning of the word “tadbîb” is explained as covering something. This word includes not only acquiring a gold tooth or a wire but also covering an entire surface. In this case, is it not permissible to have a dental filling?
Firstly, you cannot learn your religion, the knowledge of tafsîr and fiqh from a lexicon. The lexical and istilâh [technical, that is, a different meaning peculiar to the concerned branch of knowledge] meanings of a word may be different.
Secondly, today, even if the word “tadbîb” is used in the meaning of crowning, it did not mean crowning in those times [1,200 years before our time]. For there was not such a thing as having a tooth crowned 12 centuries ago. How can you make mention of a thing that did not exist? It is like saying, “Imâm-i A’zam would read books on a plane.” Were there planes then?
It is written in the paragraph about sitting on a sofa made by tadbîb in Tahtâwî’s and Ibni ‘Âbidîn’s commentaries to the book Durr-ul-mukhtâr, and also in the books Durr-ul-muntaqâ and Jâmi’ur-rumûz that tadbîb means to wind a band or something wide and flat like the sliding iron bolt of a door around an object. It is written in Bazzâziyya and in Hindiyya: “It is permissible to eat and drink from containers engraved with gold and silver designs. Yet you must not touch the silver or the gold with your hands or mouth. The Imâmayn [Imâm-i Muhammad and Imâm-i Abû Yûsuf] said that it is makrûh to use such containers. So is the case with a container that has been made by tadbîb. It is permissible to make tadbîb of a sofa or the saddle of an animal, but you must not sit on those parts of it consisting of gold and silver. It is permissible to make tadbîb on the cover of the Qur’ân. But the gold and the silver on it must not be touched.”
Hence it is inferred that tadbîb does not mean to cover the entire surface of something, but it means to place a metal band around something. It is written in books of fiqh: “It is permissible to make tadbîb of gold on a loose tooth.” This statement means that it is permissible to fasten a loose tooth with a gold wire or band in order to prevent it from falling. This is because water penetrates under such teeth. Furthermore, as today’s prostheses can be taken out while making a ghusl, the tying wires and bands can be removed, cleaned, and replaced after a ghusl. Otherwise, the food that remains between them would cause stench and damage in the mouth. To say that they said that it was permissible to crown a loose tooth is to slander the scholars of fiqh. For a loose tooth cannot be crowned, but it can be tied. Furthermore, there was not such a thing as crowned teeth in those time periods. Verily, it is a manifest slander laid upon the imâms, that is, upon men of religion.
As is seen, a real man of religion would not concoct the fatwâ: “It does not prevent the performance of a ghusl to have teeth crowned.” Books of fiqh do not contain any passages writing: “It does not prevent the performance of a ghusl to have decaying teeth filled or crowned.”
Thirdly, granted that tadbîb means covering an entire surface, what has it got to do with crowning? Because there were not dental crownings in ancient times. For what are you on the defensive regarding a thing that did not exist? The history of crowning is known. The technique of dental fillings and crownings started 150 years before our time.
A. Fikri Yavuz, as if people had had their teeth crowned centuries ago, was saying “A fatwâ was given in favor of having teeth crowned 900 years ago.”
Fear Allah! Was there such a technique as crowning 9 or 12 centuries earlier than our time. When people encounter an insuperable difficulty in giving a fatwâ, they, even if a drowning man catches at a straw, must not cling to the men of Party of Union, e.g freemasons Mûsâ Kâzim, Uryanizâda et al., and must stop useless obstinacy. They must abstain from causing Muslims to perform their acts of worship incorrectly.