Tafsir of Ghafir 40:31

This means: like the recompense for their habit—that is, their constant practice of disbelief and the harming of messengers. The possessive noun (recompense) is implied, for what is truly to be feared is the recompense for the deed, not the deed itself.

This occurs as a grammatical accusative of the second "like," acting as an explanatory apposition (bayān) to the first "like," because the latter encompasses what the genitive construction "people of Nuh" covers. Were you to say, "Allah destroyed the confederates, the people of Nuh, 'Ad, and Thamud," it would be nothing but an explanatory apposition for the attribution of "people" to proper nouns, and thus that ruling would extend to the first thing encompassed by the attribution. Ibn 'Atiyyah said: It is a substitute (badal) for the first "like," and the need to estimate the implied noun remains as it is.

Such as the people of Lot.

That is, what He—Glory be to Him—did to these confederates was not injustice, but rather justice and equity. This is because He, the Almighty and Majestic, sent to them His messengers with clear signs, yet they belied them and formed parties against them, which necessitated their destruction.

This is more eloquent than the words of the Exalted, "And your Lord is not ever unjust to [His] servants," in that the negation here is of "desiring" injustice. For one who is far from desiring injustice is even further from injustice itself. Since "injustice" is indefinite here, it is as if He negated desiring any injustice for His servants.

Al-Zamakhshari permitted that the meaning be as the meaning of the words of the Exalted, "And He does not approve of disbelief for His servants," meaning: He—Glory be to Him—does not desire for them that they should commit injustice. He means that He, the Almighty and Majestic, destroyed them because they were themselves unjust. It is not hidden that this interpretation is weaker in both wording and meaning. Furthermore, there is no argument here for the Mu'tazilah, due to the established distinction between desiring from him and desiring for him. Even if it were granted that He—Glory be to Him—does not desire that they commit injustice, it does not necessitate that He does not desire it from them (as a decree). What is impossible according to the Sunnis is the latter, so there is no need to divert the verse from its apparent meaning according to them as well.