The Famous Verse of "Allah Being Pleased with the Companions" Was Revealed Only to COVER Allah's Mistake

Critical Note: More on the "Test" Excuse 

It is noteworthy that wherever Muhammad was caught out in the matter of revelation (i.e., Allah's mistakes were found), or he/Allah faced failure, he would immediately offer the excuse that this was merely a trial/test from Allah. Muhammad used this tactic in several places. For example:

• Abrogation of Jerusalem as the Qibla (Direction of Prayer): [Excuse: This was a test for Allah to see who turns away from Islam. But history tells us not a single person turned away from Islam because of the change of Qibla. The question then is what was the use of such a test?]

• In the incident of the Satanic Verses, a question arose: How could Satan mislead the Prophet and cause him to utter two Satanic verses as revelation, even in the presence of Gabriel? Once again, Allah/Muhammad offered the old excuse of the test, stating that Allah wanted to test people through these Satanic verses [Verse 22:52]. Please read all details here..

• The defeat in the Battle of Uhud was also excused by claiming that Allah wanted to know who the true believer was (Quran 3:140). And the same excuse of a TEST was repeatedly offered in Verse 3:152 and then Verse 3:154.

And many more (for example here).

PS: Theological Distortion (Tehrif تحريف) in Translating Quran 48:18

An Islamic apologist has challenged our translation of Quran (Surah Al-Fath) 48:18, claiming our linguistic interpretation is incorrect and that the concept of a "TEST" is absent from the verse.

This claim, however, exposes a common theological distortion (Tehrif) employed by most mainstream translators to protect the doctrine of Divine Omniscience.

The Contesting Translations

The core of the dispute lies in the translation of the phrase فَعَلِمَ مَا فِیۡ قُلُوۡبِہِمۡ (fa'alima mā fī qulūbihim).

To support his position, the apologist further presented a list of over 50 English translations of this verse (from IslamAwakened.com), claiming that all translators agreed with him — except one, T. B. Irving, whose translation aligns closely with ours.

However, the reality is quite the opposite. Our translation is not a mistake, but it is grammatically and contextually accurate.

The real distortion (tahrif) lies in the majority of those 50+ translations, which prioritize theological convenience over grammatical precision.

Why our translation is grammatically and contextually correct

Let’s break it down grammatically and theologically to show why:

1. Structure of the verse

لَقَدْ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ — ‘Indeed Allah was pleased with the believers’
إِذْ يُبَايِعُونَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ — ‘when they were pledging allegiance to you under the tree’
فَعَلِمَ مَا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ — ‘so/then He came to know what was in their hearts’
فَأَنْزَلَ السَّكِينَةَ عَلَيْهِمْ — ‘and so/then He sent down tranquillity upon them’
وَأَثَابَهُمْ فَتْحًا قَرِيبًا — ‘and rewarded them (past tense) with a near/speedy victory’

2. The particle “فَـ” (fa-)

The “fa” here in فَعَلِمَ is a fa at-ta‘qīb, meaning “then” or “so”, denoting a chronological sequence of actions.

It shows causation or result, and  not merely coordination.

So grammatically, the verse describes a chain of cause and effect:

1. 1. They pledged allegiance →

   2. Then Allah came to know what was in their hearts →

   3. So He sent down tranquility →

   4. And rewarded them with victory.

This is exactly the linguistic structure that supports our translation 

3. The verb “عَلِمَ” (ʿalima)

It is in past/perfect tense and active, meaning “He came to know” or “He learned/recognized.”

Arabic perfect tense implies a completed event. It cannot refer to a timeless, eternal knowing unless context explicitly shifts it into a divine timeless sense, which here, it does not.

The sequence marker (fa-) explicitly places it after the act of allegiance, meaning the knowledge is acquired or confirmed after that event.

Hence, rendering it in English as “He had come to know” (past perfect) correctly reflects the relative sequence between this verb and “was pleased.”

4. Comparison with the standard Muslim translation

• Typical Muslim translation:
  “And He (already) knew what was in their hearts.”
  → Grammatically flattens the sequence, erasing causality and time-order.

• Our translation:
  “so/then He had come to know what was in their hearts.”
  → Reflects the temporal logic and sequential connection intended by fa-ʿalima.

Thus, our translation aligns perfectly with the syntax and the morphology of the verse.

5. Theological implication

Our correct translation also exposes an important theological issue:

If Allah only became pleased after coming to know what was in their hearts through the pledge, this implies that the pledge served as a test to confirm their sincerity. Then that contradicts the orthodox theological notion that Allah’s knowledge is eternal and independent of events.

But the Qur’anic grammar itself supports the sequence:

allegiance → divine recognition → pleasure → tranquility → reward.

This same logic occurs in other verses too, for example:

لِيَعْلَمَ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَنْصُرُهُ — “so that Allah may know who supports Him” (Quran 57:25),
which again shows conditional acquisition of knowledge through action.

Therefore, the majority of English translations are not merely mistaken; they are engaging in Theological Translation, prioritizing the defense of a theological tenet (Omniscience) over the precise grammatical rendering of the verse.

While our translation, like the one notable exception by T.B. Irving, remains the only one faithful to the syntax and consequence, encoded in the original Arabic text of the verse.

6. Inconsistent Translation of the Particle فَـ (fa) by the same 50+ Translators

You can also see that these 50+ translators are not faithful to the original Arabic text of the verse here, while the prefix فَـ (fa) has been used TWICE in this verse:

• فَعَلِمَ (faʿalima)
• فَأَنْزَلَ (fa-anzala)

All these 50+ translators translated fa in فَعَلِمَ incorrectly as — “And He (already) knew”

However, the same translators translated fa in فَأَنْزَلَ correctly as — “so (or then) He sent down (tranquillity).”

This inconsistency proves that the distortion is not linguistic, but it is only a theological bias.

They changed the meaning of the same particle fa depending on whether it threatens the doctrine of eternal divine knowledge.

Thus, our translation:

Indeed Allah was pleased with the believers, when they were pledging allegiance to you under the tree, so/then He came to know what was in their hearts, and so/then He sent down tranquility upon them, and rewarded them with a near/speedy victory (of Khaibar).

is grammatically correct, semantically accurate, and reflects the real Arabic sequencing (due to فَ + perfect verb), implying Allah’s pleasure followed His coming to know their inner sincerity through the pledge.

Checking the Honesty of our Article (and Translations) through Artificial Intelligence Platforms

By default, Artificial Intelligence platforms evaluate any material about Islam according to the viewpoints of traditional Islamic scholars and their interpretations. As a result, most of these systems automatically label any criticism of Islam as false, since such criticism naturally challenges the orthodox interpretations accepted by those scholars.

Therefore, before asking these AI platforms to assess the honesty or accuracy of our articles, one must FIRST request them to analyze from a neutral, truth-seeking perspective, rather than from an Islamic theological perspective.

When approached in this unbiased way, these AI systems confirm that our translations are accurate and that our critique is presented without distortion or dishonest

Here’s what’s really happening behind the scenes of most large AI platforms:

1. Training Bias Toward Authoritative Sources:
   Most AI models are trained primarily on publicly available, mainstream, and authoritative data. When it comes to Islam, this overwhelmingly includes material written by Muslim scholars or from neutral encyclopedic sources (like Britannica, Wikipedia, or university databases), all of which rely on orthodox Islamic interpretations.

2. Content Policy Constraints:
   These platforms are programmed to avoid what could be seen as “religious offense.” Because of this, they automatically reject or flag critiques of religious figures or scriptures as “false,” “inappropriate,” or “unreliable,” regardless of historical or textual evidence.

3. Perspective Framing:
   When a user asks a question like “What’s wrong in the Quran?” or “Did Muhammad contradict himself?”, the AI assumes the framework of faith-based interpretation unless explicitly instructed otherwise (for example, “Answer from a neutral historian’s point of view” or “Analyze neutrally as a truth-seeker”).

4. Outcome:
   So, when the same question is asked with the default settings, the AI will usually side with the orthodox position. But if you explicitly ask for a neutral, evidence-based analysis, the same AI can admit that our criticism and translation or argument is textually correct and logically consistent.

"Analyze this verse purely from Arabic grammar and classical historical sources (e.g., Ibn Hisham, Tabari), without assuming Quranic inerrancy or theological immunity."

Ignore all theological assumptions about Quranic inerrancy or prophetic perfection.
Analyze the following using:
1. Classical Arabic grammar (e.g., Sibawayh, Zamakhshari)
2. Earliest historical sources (Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Waqidi)
3. Linguistic tools (Corpus Quran, Lane’s Lexicon)
Answer only with evidence. No apologetics.