Question: Is it not permissible to apply masah [rubbing one’s wet hands] on filled teeth by way of likening it to applying masah over masts? Or is it not permissible to apply masah on them just as it is permissible to apply masah on a wound?
ANSWER
In our religion masah is made only over masts that are put on the feet. And the time duration one can continuously make masah on masts is 24 hours for a settled person. If a woman paints her nails with nail polish after performing an ablution, it is not permissible for her to make masah on her nails when her ablution is broken. Religiously ignorant people, comparing a filled tooth to a wound, say, “You do not have to wash the wound under a crowned tooth. It suffices to make masah over the tooth.” One can apply masah on a bandage put over a wound. But after a wound has healed, it is not permissible to make masah over it anymore. If there is difficulty in removing the bandage, one will be exempted from washing under it until one can remove it because it has been placed there due to some darûrat, that is, to cure the wound and to restore it to its former healty condition. Crownings or fillings, on the other hand, do not cure an ailing tooth and do not restore it to its former healty condition. They only help to use the ailing or hollowed tooth in this state for some more time. If a dental filling cured an ailing tooth, that is, repaired it by weeding out the decay, then it would have been a darûrat like a bandage. Applying masah on a bandage is different from applying masah on a crowned tooth. A bandage is placed to heal a wound, to make it regain its former condition. But in the case of a dental filling or crowning, it is not possible for an ailing tooth to return to its previous state. These two different things cannot be liken to one another.

When the necessity arises, it is permissible to imitate another madhhab. However, if the hand of person who is Hanafî but imitating the Shâfi’î Madhhab bleeds, that person cannot perform namâz in this state thinking that this situation does not break the ablution in the Shâfi’î Madhhab. For it is stated in widely accepted and dependable books:

When imitating another madhhab, it is necessary to fulfill the conditions of that madhhab as well. (Khulâsat-ut-tahqîq, Hadîqa)

When one comes upon a difficulty, it will be necessary to imitate another madhhab in order to carry out a fard. (Fatâwâ-i Khayriyya)

There is no harm in a Hanafî’s imitating another madhhab, i.e. the Shâfi’î Madhhab, for doing something which one cannot do in one’s own madhhab. The same is written in the books Bahrurrâiq and Nahrulfâiq. (Ni’mat-i Islâm)

When there is a haraj [difficulty], imitating one of the other three madhhabs does not depend on the condition that there should also exist a darûrat. In order for an act of worship to be valid, it must be in accordance with any of the four madhhabs. If one of the conditions of that act of worship is in conformity with one madhhab but another condition of it is in conformity with another madhhab, this act of worship will not be valid. (Radd-ul-mukhtâr)

In ancient times, a loose tooth would be tied with a gold wire. The fallen tooth itself or the tooth of sheep or a tooth made of gold would be put in place of a missing tooth, and it would be fastened to other teeth with a wire. And water would penetrate under this wire.

It is permissible for a man to wear a silver ring, but if the ring is too tight to let water soak through, his ghusl will not be valid. In order for an ablution or a ghusl to be valid, it is necessary to moisten the skin under the ring by shifting it. Likewise, it is permissible to get a tooth crowned. But in that case, it is not possible for water to soak the skin. You do not have to pull out the teeth, so you draw benefit from the ruhksat [an easy way in carrying out a fard or avoiding a harâm] prescribed by our religion; you imitate either of the two madhhabs, namely, Shâfi’î or Mâlikî; both of them declare that it is not fard [obligatory] to wash inside the mouth in ghusl.

There is no harm in Hanafîs’ imitating the Shâfi’î Madhhab for doing something which they cannot do in their own madhhab. But to do this, they have to fulfill the conditions of the madhhab they are imitating. If they imitate when there is no necessity or do not observe the conditions of that madhhab, it is termed talfîq [eclecticism, unification of madhhabs], which is not permissible. (Explanation of Marâqil-falâh)

When there is a predicament in performing an act of worship on account of one’s doing something without a darûrat, it is necessary to imitate another madhhab to perform this fard; this fact is written in such valuable books as Radd-ul-mukhtâr, Mîzan, Hadîqa, Barîqa, Fatâwâ-i hadîthiyya, Fatâwâ-i Khayriyya, and Ma’fuwwât.

You do not wash inside the body
Question: They say, “Dental fillings do not prevent the performance of a ghusl because as it is not necessary to wash inside the body, but to wash outer parts of it, so in the same way, it is not necessary to wash inside a tooth, but to wash outer surface of it. You do not have to wet under fillings.” Is it true?
ANSWER
Inside a tooth is definitely not washed, and there is no one making something like this either. If the finger of a person is amputated by the root, the part left behind, from now on, is considered to be an outer part of the body. If that part is not washed, neither an ablution nor a ghusl will be valid. Likewise, if a hand is cut off by the wrist, the part left behind is regarded as an outer part of the body. If that place is not washed, neither an ablution nor a ghusl will be valid. The case is the same with a tooth. If half a tooth is broken, the remaining part is considered the outer limb of the body; it is fard to wash this outer part as well. It is written in fiqh books that a ghusl will not be acceptable if any dry place as large as a point of a pin remains in the mouth, between or on the teeth.