The Shaykh’s discussion of some Hanafi scholars who used to issue a ruling that filling teeth is forbidden because it prevents water from reaching the inside of the tooth during the ritual bath for major ritual impurity
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The point is that I had previously discussed this man with me regarding his son, because the outcome of the case was that he expelled his son from his house. He gave him the choice: either have his tooth extracted if he wanted to stay with his father, or leave his house. The son could not have two or three teeth extracted, because that would be a waste of money first, and a weakening of the body second, and this is not permissible Mishkat al-Masabih 3696, knowing that he had obtained a fatwa permitting this matter. In any case, a discussion took place between me and this boy’s father, and I said to him: This ruling that you are issuing, you admit that it is based on your opinion and independent legal reasoning, because tooth filling did not exist before. Therefore, it is not permissible for you to issue a ruling on something that does not exist in the Book, because the book of Islamic jurisprudence is the evidence for those who follow a scholar without knowing his evidence. As for what Allah said or what the Messenger of Allah said, they explicitly state that this is the work of scholars qualified to derive rulings, and there is no independent legal reasoning today, because the door of independent legal reasoning was closed after the fourth century of the Hijrah.
So where did you get this ruling that declares the prayer of those who fill their teeth in this era to be invalid?! Of course, he makes excuses with things that have no weight. So I brought two things:
One is related to our topic, and the other is from the same books of jurisprudence, but one who has no understanding of the Sunnah has no understanding of the traditional jurisprudence that exists today in the hands of those who follow a scholar without knowing his evidence.
As for the thing I brought from the Sunnah—which is the crux of this matter as they say—it is found in *Musnad al-Imam Ahmad* and some of the Sunan collections from one of the Companions named 'Urfajah ibn Sa'd:: Knowing that gold is forbidden for men, nevertheless the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted him to make a nose of gold to replace the nose of silver.
And by virtue of my having practiced the profession of watch repair, in watch repair there are two types of soldering:
The first is tin, and the second is silver. Perhaps some of you have seen some pocket watches with two covers. This cover has a hinge that sometimes breaks, so it is soldered with silver if the case is silver, and sometimes with copper if it is copper. The point is that we know by experience that silver solder rusts like iron. So when I read this hadith, why did the nose become foul-smelling from the silver? Because here, as you know, there is some moisture. When this moisture meets the silver nose, it rusts and becomes a substance like green rust, so it becomes foul-smelling and he is bothered by it, unlike gold. So he (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to make a nose of gold, and he was relieved.
I used this hadith as evidence against him because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), when he permitted this man to make a nose of gold, even though the necessity of a tooth is greater than the necessity of a nose, because this is cosmetic. Yes, by doing so, I do not say he is recreating Allah’s creation as Allah created it, but rather approximating it. And with this metal that does not rust and has no problem, nevertheless the Messenger of Allah permitted it. So it is more permissible to fill the tooth, which if left unfilled or extracted—because what was he saying? He was saying instead of filling it, he would put in a bridge, you know, a bridge that is removed and put in. But this first: does not have the stability of the natural divine tooth, and it may break, may cause inflammation, and so on. When I argued with him using this hadith, he answered me with two answers:
The first answer: that this argumentation is not my job, this is the job of the scholar qualified to derive rulings, and you are not a scholar qualified to derive rulings.
And the second answer he said: This nose of gold was like a set of teeth, like molds, they call them molds, and what else?
The questioner : A set.
The Shaykh : Meaning it is removed and put in. When a person wants to perform the ablution, whether in the ablution or in the full ritual bath, he can remove it and clean it. So this nose of gold was likewise removed and put in. Why does he say this?!
To justify his incorrect fatwa. I refuted him by saying that if the first nose was like a set that is removed and placed, then it means it is cleaned and does not rust. In that case, the complaint of 'Urfajah ibn Sa'd about his silver nose means that it was attached. And here we pause a little and think: Did medicine in that era reach a stage of creativity and invention that we do not know in this era, where they reached the composition of a fixed nose of silver or gold? My saying this did not convince him, even though it is very clear. So I came to him from his books, and here is the point in the second, even though it has no relation to our previous research, the relation to this hadith: that the one who has some comprehensive knowledge of the Sunnah does not need such branches, and his case is like the case of a maker of leather slippers.
A creature is not to be obeyed when it involves disobedience to the "Creator.”
ولا طاعة لمخلوق في معصية الخالقSo where did you get this ruling that declares the prayer of those who fill their teeth in this era to be invalid?! Of course, he makes excuses with things that have no weight. So I brought two things:
One is related to our topic, and the other is from the same books of jurisprudence, but one who has no understanding of the Sunnah has no understanding of the traditional jurisprudence that exists today in the hands of those who follow a scholar without knowing his evidence.
As for the thing I brought from the Sunnah—which is the crux of this matter as they say—it is found in *Musnad al-Imam Ahmad* and some of the Sunan collections from one of the Companions named 'Urfajah ibn Sa'd:
That his nose was injured in the Battle of Kala'b, so he made a nose of silver, which became foul-smelling on him. So he came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) after he had become a Muslim, of course, and complained to him about it, so he ordered him to make a nose of gold.
أنه كان قد أُصيب أنفه في وقعة كلاب، فاتخذ أنفاً من ورِق من فضة، فأنتن عليه، فجاء إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بعدما أسلم طبعاً فشكى إليه ذلك، فأمره بأن يتخذ أنفًا من ذهبAnd by virtue of my having practiced the profession of watch repair, in watch repair there are two types of soldering:
The first is tin, and the second is silver. Perhaps some of you have seen some pocket watches with two covers. This cover has a hinge that sometimes breaks, so it is soldered with silver if the case is silver, and sometimes with copper if it is copper. The point is that we know by experience that silver solder rusts like iron. So when I read this hadith, why did the nose become foul-smelling from the silver? Because here, as you know, there is some moisture. When this moisture meets the silver nose, it rusts and becomes a substance like green rust, so it becomes foul-smelling and he is bothered by it, unlike gold. So he (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to make a nose of gold, and he was relieved.
I used this hadith as evidence against him because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), when he permitted this man to make a nose of gold, even though the necessity of a tooth is greater than the necessity of a nose, because this is cosmetic. Yes, by doing so, I do not say he is recreating Allah’s creation as Allah created it, but rather approximating it. And with this metal that does not rust and has no problem, nevertheless the Messenger of Allah permitted it. So it is more permissible to fill the tooth, which if left unfilled or extracted—because what was he saying? He was saying instead of filling it, he would put in a bridge, you know, a bridge that is removed and put in. But this first: does not have the stability of the natural divine tooth, and it may break, may cause inflammation, and so on. When I argued with him using this hadith, he answered me with two answers:
The first answer: that this argumentation is not my job, this is the job of the scholar qualified to derive rulings, and you are not a scholar qualified to derive rulings.
And the second answer he said: This nose of gold was like a set of teeth, like molds, they call them molds, and what else?
The questioner : A set.
The Shaykh : Meaning it is removed and put in. When a person wants to perform the ablution, whether in the ablution or in the full ritual bath, he can remove it and clean it. So this nose of gold was likewise removed and put in. Why does he say this?!
To justify his incorrect fatwa. I refuted him by saying that if the first nose was like a set that is removed and placed, then it means it is cleaned and does not rust. In that case, the complaint of 'Urfajah ibn Sa'd about his silver nose means that it was attached. And here we pause a little and think: Did medicine in that era reach a stage of creativity and invention that we do not know in this era, where they reached the composition of a fixed nose of silver or gold? My saying this did not convince him, even though it is very clear. So I came to him from his books, and here is the point in the second, even though it has no relation to our previous research, the relation to this hadith: that the one who has some comprehensive knowledge of the Sunnah does not need such branches, and his case is like the case of a maker of leather slippers.