What was the reason behind Christians being called mushriks.

MASOOMboy

Read the whole verse brother. God corrects them that god doesn't have a SON. So it's very clear that some took "son of god" to the literal meaning as there was no need to correct them if they already knew that god doesnt have any son. In other verses god also corrects people who claimed that he has daughters.

Peace Sister, I think we are on the same side of the river with our backs facing each other )

I'm also trying to say the same thing that, people who either by mistake or by design took any prophets & angles as sons & daughters of GOD are indeed doing a BIG Blasphemy in the sight of God and indeed He is and have counted them one by one !

Regards,

Hoppean

1988 And they said the Almighty has taken a son!
1989 You have come with a gross blasphemy.
1990 The heavens are about to shatter from it, and the earth crack open, and the mountains fall and
crumble.
1991 That they claimed that the Almighty had a son!
1992 And what need does the Almighty have to take a son?
1993 When all there is in the heavens and the earth will come to the Almighty as servants.
1994 He has encompassed them, and counted them one by one.
1995 And all of them will come to Him on the Day of Resurrection, all alone.

Peace all,
These verses are not directed to any one group in particular but as a blanket rule to all who say God has taken a son and as per Quran, Its a big/gross blasphemy, period.
Now, we human have no business to pin point others for that blasphemy as the Almighty have and is counting them all one by one.

Hello Masoomboy, just a couple of questions

I am wondering how you decided that "walad" means son here, considering that you admit that the context is ambiguous? There are plenty of examples of walad meaning offspring/children/child/begotten; how do we know that it shouldn't be rendered as "offspring"?
As well, how would you translate "ittakhatha"? It is not consistent with any Christian teaching to say that God took/made for himself a son; Christians do not believe that. The only possibility I can see is, perhaps, a reference to the doctrine of "eternal generation"; which would require a translation of "took from himself a begotten/offspring". Yet, this would change the "standard" interpretation of this text, so that it would have nothing to do with saying "son of God". Rather, it would be an objection to the claim that Christ is the son of God because God eternally begets him.

Nevertheless, I do not feel that there is any warrant to make this (and similar texts) about Christianity. It seems to me that 4171 is sufficient with regard to this issue; there "ittakhatha" is not found, and it is clearly, and contextually, a reference to Christian beliefs in that part of the world. I also believe that here "walad" should be translated as offpsring/begotten.

Maha

Hello Masoomboy, just a couple of questions

I am wondering how you decided that "walad" means son here, considering that you admit that the context is ambiguous? There are plenty of examples of walad meaning offspring/children/child/begotten; how do we know that it shouldn't be rendered as "offspring"?
As well, how would you translate "ittakhatha"? It is not consistent with any Christian teaching to say that God took/made for himself a son; Christians do not believe that. The only possibility I can see is, perhaps, a reference to the doctrine of "eternal generation"; which would require a translation of "took from himself a begotten/offspring". Yet, this would change the "standard" interpretation of this text, so that it would have nothing to do with saying "son of God". Rather, it would be an objection to the claim that Christ is the son of God because God eternally begets him.

Nevertheless, I do not feel that there is any warrant to make this (and similar texts) about Christianity. It seems to me that 4171 is sufficient with regard to this issue; there "ittakhatha" is not found, and it is clearly, and contextually, a reference to Christian beliefs in that part of the world. I also believe that here "walad" should be translated as offpsring/begotten.

Thanks for sharing !! I have also always said that it's not "son of god" itself which is seen as a problem but the begotten part.

Peace