Exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: ((So We will surely let those who disbelieved taste a severe punishment, and We will surely give them the worst of what they used to do.))

Allah the Exalted said: [Surah Fussilat: 27] This sentence is affirmed by three affirmers: the implied oath, and the affirmation of the verb and the lam indicate to us the oath; the second is the lam, and the third is the nun. That is, We will surely punish them with a punishment whose pain they will taste, and it is an allusion to the severity of this punishment that reaches their taste until it is as if it is a tangible thing they are tasting with their mouths. By "those who disbelieved" is meant those mentioned previously, namely those who said: And at that point, someone might ask: Why was it not made implicit by saying "So We will surely let them taste"? We say: Here, the explicit is used in place of the implicit, and using the explicit in place of the implicit has benefits. The first benefit is alerting the addressee. How so? Because it is customary that when the context requires the implicit, the implicit is used. So when the explicit comes, it is contrary to custom. Are you with us or not? Is this Arabic or foreign?
The student: Arabic.

The Shaykh : Arabic. The custom is that when speech is in the context of the implicit, what comes is the implicit, meaning the pronoun. So when the explicit comes in place of the pronoun, a person will pause and wonder why the explicit came in place of the pronoun, and in that lies an alert for him. This is one benefit. The second benefit is judging the referent of this pronoun according to this explicit name. So in the verse with us, Thus the benefit is: judging them as disbelievers. And so, whenever the explicit is used in place of the implicit, judge it by this benefit. The third benefit is generality. If it had said "So We will surely let them taste," this threat would be specific to those who said: "Do not listen to this Qur'an." But when it says "So We will surely let those who disbelieved taste," it becomes general for them and others. Is that clear? ... Here, is in the accusative case. So what put it in the accusative case, Salih?
The student:

The Shaykh : What put it in the accusative case is ? Does "nudeeq" (let taste) take one object or two objects?
The student: It takes one object.

The Shaykh : One object?
The student: Two objects.

The Shaykh : ...being made? How can it take two objects? What is the evidence that it takes two objects? Because we have a rule that if a verb is transitive to one object and the hamzah of transitivity is added to it, it becomes transitive to two objects; and if it is transitive to two objects and the hamzah is added to it, it becomes transitive to three objects. An example of this is, for instance, How many objects does it take? One. So when the hamzah is added to it, it takes two objects. And with you say, "I saw the man standing," which takes two objects. So when you add the hamzah to it, it takes three objects, and you say, "I made Zayd see the man standing." This is a consistent Arabic rule: the verb, yes, let us start from the beginning: if it is intransitive and the hamzah is added to it, what happens? It becomes transitive to one object. If it is transitive to one object and the hamzah is added to it, it becomes transitive to two objects. If it is transitive to two objects and the hamzah is added to it, it becomes transitive to three objects. Now, A severe, strong punishment. It is conjoined to This takes two objects: the first is the hah, and the second is