On the same basis, the grammarians also disagree over the like of His words,

“to the right and to the left, seated,”
(Q 50:17) (1) and similar passages.

According to the first view, the underlying sense would be:
“Allah has promised the hypocrites the Fire, just as He promised those before you; and for them is a perpetual punishment, like those before you, or like the punishment of those before you.” (2)
Two of these governed elements are then omitted, the remaining one pointing to them (3)—and they consider it stylistically preferable to drop the first two (4).

Under the second view one may say: the very same kāf is connected to “He promised,” to “He cursed,” and to His words,
“and for them is a lasting punishment” (Q 9:68), (5)
because the kāf itself shows no inflection. This holds on the assumption that all three verbs overtly govern an accusative object.

If it is maintained that the third verb governs a nominative, the answer is that the governance is in form one and the same, for the linkage is semantic rather than syntactic.

Once you realise that some scholars locate the comparison in the act of promising and others locate it in the punishment, you will see that the two opinions are inseparable: likeness in the cause entails likeness in the effect, and vice-versa. There is therefore no substantive disagreement between them.

Likewise, the difference we cited among the grammarians regarding whether the omission is required or not is merely a divergence in rationale and method; it does not give rise to any difference in parsing or