Tafsir of Al-Jumu'ah 62:8

"Say, indeed, the death from which you flee"—meaning you do not dare to wish for it, for fear of being seized by the consequences of your deeds—"it will meet you." It is inevitable, without any repeller to turn it away, nor any mediator to deflect it.

The sentence is the predicate of Inna (Indeed), and the fa (ف) is used because the noun has incorporated the meaning of a condition by virtue of it being described by a relative pronoun (al-mawsul), for the adjective and the noun described are like a single entity. Therefore, it is not said that "the fa only enters the predicate when the subject contains the meaning of a condition," since the relative pronoun is not a subject (mubtada'). Its inclusion in such a case is not obligatory—as it is in a literal conditional response—but rather it is for a rhetorical point (nukta) befitting the context. Here, it signifies the exaggeration of its inescapability. That is, since fleeing from a thing in the course of habit implies escaping it, the fa was brought to indicate that the act of fleeing is [actually] the cause of the encounter, as an exaggeration of what was mentioned and a reversal of the situation.

It is also said: What falls within the scope of the fa is, in terms of meaning, a response in the sense of notification. Thus, it signifies that fleeing—which is assumed to be a cause of salvation—is actually the cause for being notified of meeting it, as in His saying, “And whatever you have of favor—it is from Allah.” However, this is a weak view in the context here, as it lacks the meaning of exaggeration. Some, including al-Farra', prohibited the entry of the fa in such constructions and said: It is redundant here. It is also permitted that the relative pronoun be the predicate of Inna and the fa be a conjunction, as if to say: "Indeed, death is the thing you flee from, and it shall meet you."

Zayd ibn Ali read Innahu mulaqikum without the fa, interpreted as the predicate being the relative pronoun, with this sentence being an initiation or the predicate, while the relative pronoun is an adjective, as in the reading of the majority. It is also permitted that the predicate be mulaqikum and innahu be an emphasis for al-mawt (death), for when the speech becomes lengthy, the particle is emphasized, accompanied by the pronoun of the noun which the Inna refers to. Ibn Mas'ud read tafirruna minhu mulaqikum without the fa or the Innahu, which is clear.

"Then you will be returned to the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed"—the One from whom no hidden thing is concealed—"and He will inform you of what you used to do."

[On Fleeing from the Plague]

From the verse, more than one person has sensed the prohibition of fleeing from the plague, and the discourse on this is long. Among them is he who deemed it forbidden, such as Ibn Khuzaymah, who dedicated a chapter in his Sahih titled "The Prohibition of Fleeing from the Plague is among the Major Sins," asserting that Allah Almighty punishes whoever does so unless He forgives him. He supported this with the hadith of Aisha: "Fleeing from the plague is like fleeing from the battlefield," narrated by Imam Ahmad, al-Tabarani, Ibn 'Adi, and others, and its chain of narration is sound (hasan).

Al-Taj al-Subki mentioned that the majority hold it to be prohibited. Others, such as Imam Malik, said it is disliked (karaha). Al-Qadi 'Iyad and others reported the permissibility of leaving land struck by it from a group of the Companions, including Abu Musa al-Ash'ari and al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, and from the Successors, including al-Aswad ibn Hilal and Masruq. It is reported by Imam Ahmad and al-Tabarani that 'Amr ibn al-'As said, during the plague, at the end of his sermon: "Indeed, this plague is a scourge like a flood; he who avoids it escapes it, and like fire; he who avoids it escapes it, while he who remains will be burned by it." In another wording: "The plague is a scourge; so disperse from it into the ravines and these valleys." They dispersed, and this reached 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and he did not disapprove of it or dislike it.

From Tariq ibn Shihab, who said: We were talking to Abu Musa al-Ash'ari while he was in his house in Kufa, and the plague had occurred. He said to us: "There is no harm if you move away from this village and go out into the spaciousness of your lands until this epidemic is lifted. For I shall tell you what is disliked regarding this: that one who leaves should think that if he had stayed and been afflicted, and if he had left he would not have been afflicted. If he does not think this, then there is no harm in him leaving and distancing himself from it."

Al-Bayhaqi and others narrated from him with a sound chain that he said: "Indeed, this plague has occurred, so whoever wishes to distance himself from it, let him do so. But beware of two things: that a person says, 'So-and-so left and was safe, and so-and-so stayed and was afflicted; had I left, I would have been safe like so-and-so, and had I stayed, I would have been afflicted like so-and-so.'" It is understood that there is no harm in leaving, provided one believes that everything predestined will happen.

I seem to perceive that you would choose this, but in the Fatawa of the learned Ibn Hajar, it is stated that the point of dispute is when one leaves fleeing from it while believing that if it were decreed for him, he would be afflicted, and that his fleeing will not save him; however, he leaves hoping to be safe. As for leaving its location with the intention that he has the power to escape the decree of Allah Almighty and that his action is what saves him, it is clear that it is forbidden—rather, it is disbelief by consensus.

As for leaving for an incidental work, or for medical treatment of a plague ulcer or other ailments, this is something that should not be a matter of disagreement in its permissibility, as some researchers have explicitly stated. From this, in my view, is the onset of an uncontrollable natural obsession that causes him clear harm, or the strong probability that he will not be buried or washed if he dies in that location.

It is said: Fleeing from the plague is not to be measured against fleeing from other perils, as the latter is commanded. Al-Jalal al-Suyuti said: "Fleeing from epidemics like fever and all other causes of death is permissible by consensus. The plague is an exception to the general rule of perils from which one is commanded to flee, due to the prohibition—whether prohibitive or deterrable—against fleeing from it."

They disagreed on the cause of the prohibition:

1. It is said: Because when the plague occurs in a land, its cause permeates all within it, so fleeing is of no benefit. If his appointed time has arrived, he is a dead man whether he leaves or stays. If it has not, he will not die. Thus, remaining is preferred because leaving is a form of folly unworthy of the wise. This was countered by denying that the cause permeates everyone if it occurs in a land. Even if granted, epidemics are the same; if his time has arrived, he is dead whether he leaves or stays, yet they permitted fleeing from them.
2. It is said: If people flocked to leave, the sick—unable to leave—would perish for lack of caregivers, and the dead would be neglected for lack of those to prepare them. Also, the departure of the strong breaks the hearts of the weak. Also, the one who leaves says: "Had I not left, I would have died," and the one who remains says: "Had I left, I would have been safe," thus falling into the forbidden "if only" (law). All this was countered by the fact that this is also present in fleeing from epidemics and the disease known as "Abu Zaw'ah," which exhausted doctors and for which isolation and caution, as known in the plague, were of no benefit.
3. It is said: For the one who dies of it—and likewise for the patient seeker of reward who remains in his place even if he does not die of it—there is the reward of a martyr. Fleeing is turning away from martyrdom; this is the point of the comparison in the hadith of Aisha according to some. This was countered by the fact that it is authentically established that the Prophet (may Allah's blessings be upon him) passed by a leaning wall and hurried, and no one was prevented from doing so. Likewise with fleeing from a fire, even though the one who dies therein is also a martyr.

Some scholars maintained that the prohibition is purely devotional (ta'abbudi). It seems that when he saw that no cause was safe from criticism, he said this. There are numerous treatises on some parts of this issue, so whoever wishes for a comprehensive discussion should refer to them.