Question: It is said, “There is a fatwâ given by Imâm-i A’zam and the Imâmayn [Imâm-i Abû Yûsuf and Imâm-i Muhammad] that it is permissible to have teeth filled or crowned.” Is there such a fatwâ?
There is never such a fatwâ. During the time of Hadrat Imâm-i A’zam, there was not the technique of crowning or filling. If one says, “Imâm-i A’zam would type using a computer,” how do you react? If the person saying this is not an insane, then (s)he is called a liar because Hadrat Imâm-i A’zam passed away in A.D. 767. That is, more than 1,200 years have passed since his death; it has been 1,241 years. In those times, there were not fillings, crowns, or computers. Dental fillings and crowns first appeared in 1850. Now, it is nothing but ignorance to say that Imâm-i A’zam gave a fatwâ for fillings and crowns.
The Imâmayn gave permission to tie a tooth with a gold wire, but Imâm-i A’zam’s permission, in this respect, is conditional upon the wire’s being silver. This issue is not included in the subject concerning the ghusl, but in the subject concerning using gold and silver. The permission given by those savants is a fatwâ for using metals. It has nothing to do with the ghusl.
Likewise, there is a fatwâ given by savants for wearing a silver ring. Wearing a silver ring for men is stated to be permissible. But if the ring is too tight to let water soak through, the ghusl will not be valid. Does the permission to wear a silver ring mean that the skin under it will be exempt from being washed?
It is necessary to abide by the ethics of knowledge
Question: Basing their argument on the statements written in the book Hindiyya which read: “If food remains are left in the tooth cavities or between the teeth or if there is wet mucus in the nostrils, according to the truest word, a ghusl will be valid. But it is better, as a precaution, to pick the food out and to wet under it,” they say that dental crowns do not prevent the performance of a ghusl. Is it true?
It is false. With malice aforethought, they have excerpted the statement incompletely. They do not quote the statement “Dry mucus in the nostrils prevents the performance of a ghusl” from Hindiyya. Since water infiltrates under the food in the tooth cavities, it does not harm a ghusl. However, if water does not go under the food remains which have become solid like dough, the ghusl will not be valid. In the same way, they have inserted a made-up addition into the translation of Multaqâ. What is their aim?
The Translation of Multaqâ
Question: In the book Ýzahlý Mülteka Tercümesi (Annotated Translation of Multaqâ), it is said to be written, “If it is impossible to take a filling out, if you make do with the water that flows on the filling, the ghusl will be valid,” and this is put forth as proof. Is this book not dependable?
It is falsification to say that there is such a statement in Multaqâ. When Multaqâ was written, there was no such thing as a dental filling. Therefore, the issue of dental fillings do not even get a mention in the book, and in fact, it is not possible for it to be mentioned. The author of the book, Hadrat Ibrâhîm Halabî, passed away in 1549. The translator himself added this part as a footnote. That is, this addition itself is not dependable.