Commentary on al-Jalalain’s Tafsir: “The people of Noah and the parties before them denied [the truth],” namely the people of ‘Ad and Thamud and others, “and every nation plotted against their messenger”

The commentator says: “namely the people of ‘Ad and Thamud and others” So what did their denial avail them? Allah the Mighty and Majestic says: .
And His saying: This is connected to “plotted,” meaning they intended to kill him. The lam here means the ba, meaning by seizing him and killing him. Some of them actually killed the prophets without right. This explains the meaning of the argumentation mentioned earlier in His saying: So they argued with falsehood, meaning they made falsehood their weapon, to remove the truth with it. They would bring forth falsehood and argue with it against the truth to refute it. Know that those who bring forth falsehood to refute the truth do not bring it forth in its plain form, but they adorn the speech for it, as Allah the Exalted said: Therefore, you will find those who argue with falsehood using expressions that, when a person sees them, he thinks they are truth, like a mirage to the thirsty. And as some of them said:
Arguments that collapse like glass; you think them true, but every broken thing is broken.
They bring forth the adornment of speech. Adornment means speech that is polished, beautified, and decorated in order to refute the truth. Allah the Exalted said: The fa here indicates causality, meaning that because of their argumentation with falsehood and their denial, We seized them. The subject pronoun refers to Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, and the object pronoun refers to these deniers.
“

And the earthquake took them

فأخذتهم

with punishment

and how [terrible] was My penalty.

فكيف كان عقاب

[Ar-Ra'd 13:32]

” The author explained the seizing here as punishment because of his saying: meaning My punishment for them. The “how” here is for wonder, for affirmation, and for magnification as well, meaning that My punishment was great in its manner, in its taking its due course, and in its severity, for it was a punishment that left none of them behind. Accordingly, the interrogative has several meanings, determined by the context.
And His saying: may appear confusing to the observer at first glance: how was it in the genitive case when it is a subject or the predicate of a subject? It is said that it is not in the genitive case, and that the original form is “my punishment” (‘uqubati), so the ya was deleted for ease of pronunciation, and the kasrah before it is evidence of it.
“meaning it took its due course” This is based on the assumption that the interrogative is affirmative. If we say it is for magnification, the meaning becomes: meaning how great and severe was My punishment, where it removed them to the last of them.