Reply to sam shamoun, Jinns ascribe a "WALADAN" begotten son to THE GOD!
-
Sadly due to ignorant sunnis, christians of today place this attack on the Quran. They say the Quran understands the terminology "son of God" held by the modern day christians to mean a physically begotten son rather then the spiritual element of it as I understand the christians believe.
Amazingly the Quranic linguistic differences as in this case between the two words "WALAD" and "UBNU" are not properly understood by sunnis, christians and whoever else approaches the Quran.
http//www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/quran_trinity.htm
This christian sam wrote this article, I'm only referring to the begotten argument in his article. Interestingly there was an ignoramus sunni in sams article who tried to argue with sam the word "ittakhadhu" and Sam was pleased with this.
I encourage sam and anyone else to please focus on 3 specific texts were this word WALAD is used and not UBNU. These 3 ayahs were used in his article, I reply
Surah 6100 discusses the JINN as being made partners with THE GOD and continues to say they falsely attribute to him sons and daughters. In 6101 this word WALADUN is used, now compare this with Surah 72 named, not a coincidence JINN ayah 3.
In this Surah it is a JINN who uses this word WALADAN, so in full context with the other ayahs we notice that it's some from the JINN race who are specifically identifying a begotten son and associating this with THE GOD. Interestingly you won't find this word UBNU with JINN in AL QURAN. Amazingly the very thing this christian believes, the Quran identifies his polytheistic UBNU spiritual relationship with THE GOD and his son, yet he's criticising the Quran for not understanding his belief.
To remove some further doubt, Surah 930, you find humans claiming UBNU and not WALADAN. In Surah 345 Jesus is called UBNU NOT WALADAN.
So it's clear now, either way attributing a UBNU or WALADAN to THE GOD, physical or spiritual is all KUFR/SHIRK!
-
Even in the Biblical Gospels, Jesus says that you will all be children of the Father if you do like him. By other means, if you are a male then you will technically go under the label son using logic. Jesus did not imply biological offspring in his words but means a symbiosis between Father and Son. He did not say he was separate but "I am in the Father and the Father is in me". That causes the idea of trinity to be illogical. And son (child) in the regard is an attained state and not without first growing spiritually.
This maddened the sectarian clerics of his time and to the extent that he was executed. They awaited a prophet who confirmed their sectarian doctrine and not someone who taught something opposite of their millennia long corruption and fabrication of what Moses taught them. But the assimilation and immersion into the spirit of Allah was already with people during Moses' time. The separation of GOD is Pagan influence. And the sectarians beat down on this by calling it shirk, to say you immerse yourself into the image of GOD (ALLAH), despite that you erase or let your soul be blended with that of GOD's to be absorbed into the oneness. It is actually not idolatry at all but you submit perfectly while doing as GOD originally said, i.e. "Man was created in the image of GOD". Obviously if you make a separation of your Rabb then you do not.
Salaam