for her recovery. She chose affliction and Paradise. Had removing illness been obligatory, there would have been no room for such a choice, just as there is none when it comes to warding off hunger. Further evidence is found in his supplication that Ubayy be afflicted with fever, his choosing fever for the people of Qubāʾ, his supplication that his community should perish through stabbing and plague, and his prohibition against fleeing from plague.

Anyone who disputes this is also refuted by the example of Allah’s prophets who were afflicted and patiently endured their afflictions without resorting to means of removing them, such as Job, peace be upon him, and others. He is likewise refuted by the example of the righteous predecessors. When Abū Bakr al-Siddīq, may Allah be pleased with him, was asked, “Shall we call a physician for you?” he replied, “He has already seen me.” They asked, “What did He say to you?” He replied, “He said, ‘I do whatever I will.’”

Similar accounts are related from al-Rabīʿ ibn Khuthaym, humble and ever turning to Allah, who was the finest of the people of Kufa, or equal to their finest; from ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, the upright caliph who guided others and was himself rightly guided; and from countless others.

I know of no predecessor who held medical treatment to be obligatory. Rather, many people of virtue and knowledge preferred to forgo it, considering this more virtuous and choosing what Allah had chosen, accepting it and submitting to Him. This is Ahmad’s explicitly stated position, although some of his followers hold treatment to be obligatory, while others consider it recommended and preferable. The latter approach was also followed by many of the predecessors, who adhered to the means Allah has created and made part of His established way with His servants.