Third, eating carrion is obligatory for someone in dire necessity, according to the apparent position of the imams and others. As Masrūq said: “Whoever is compelled by necessity to eat carrion but refuses to eat until he dies will enter the Fire.” Medical treatment, however, is not obligatory according to the overwhelming majority of imams.

Only a small minority have considered it obligatory, including some followers of al-Shāfi‘ī and Ahmad. Indeed, scholars have disagreed over which is better: seeking treatment or patiently enduring illness. This is because of the authentic hadith narrated by Ibn ‘Abbās about:

“A young woman who suffered seizures and asked the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to supplicate for her. He said: ‘If you wish, you may remain patient and Paradise will be yours; or, if you wish, I will ask Allah to heal you.’ She replied: ‘Rather, I will remain patient. But I become uncovered, so ask Allah that I not become uncovered.’ He therefore supplicated for her not to become uncovered.”

It is also because many of the Companions and their successors did not seek treatment; some even chose illness, such as Ubayy ibn Ka‘b and Abū Dharr. Yet they were not censured for forgoing treatment.

Since eating carrion is obligatory while seeking treatment is not, drawing an analogy between them is invalid. For an obligatory act may permit what is permitted in a non-obligatory act, because the benefit of fulfilling the obligation outweighs the harm of the prohibited act. The Lawgiver takes both harms and benefits into account; when they coincide, He gives precedence to the greater benefit over the lesser harm. Thus, in obligatory jihad He permitted things He did not permit otherwise, even allowing the enemy to be bombarded with catapults, though this might lead to the killing of