Son of GOD: Some Muslims' Misconception:
The following article was taken from: http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/son-misconception.html
Son of God
Muslims' Misconception
by Tiger Chan
Published in Oct., 29th, 2003
Referring to the article at: http://www.carm.org/islam/obj_Jesus_son.htm
To some Muslims, the term "Son of God" brings up images of a sort of divine being with a goddess wife who together have somehow produced a child. When Christians use the term in reference to Jesus, they immediately assume that the Christians are committing blasphemy by stating that God has participated in some sort of sexual union with another god - a goddess wife.
They say: "the most gracious has betaken a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it in the skies are about to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, that they attributed a son to the Most Gracious, for it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that he should beget a son. (The Qur'an, 5:88-92).
Note that the author says, "To some Muslims ..". It means that those Muslims who think Christians believe Jesus as the literal "son" of God equivalent with human understanding that the term "son" is a biological offspring of another human. Not all Muslims happen to believe that way, or does the Qur'an accuse Christians of believing that Jesus is the literal biological son of God? If we read what Christian theology books say, it says that Christians never believe that God begot a literal biological son. This is a Muslims' misconception of what Christians truly believe in.
Does the Qur'an teach that Christians believe as such; that Jesus as "Son of God" in the literal and biological sense? Lets take a look at some verses of the Qur'an ...
First off all, I like to point out that the Qur'anic reference used in the article is out of place. The Qur'an 5:88-92 refers to the wrong verses, such translation never exist. Most probably the it should be The Qur'an 19:88-92.
Note that the Qur'an says:
wa qalu ittakhaza Ar-Rahmanu walad(an)
And they say "The Most Gracious had taken a
son".
[Qur'an 19:88]
The Arabic verb form of the singular tense is "ittakhaza" which means, to take, adopt (according to Hans-Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary). There is no meaning that "ittakhaza" also mean "to beget".
The Arabic-Arabic Dictionary "Al-Mu'tamad" which is an adaptation of "Lisan-ul-Arab", an Arabic lexicon, has "ittakhaza" to mean as "ittakhaza fulan(an) Sadeeq(an)" i.e., he has taken so and so as a friend. That means "ittakhaza" in the Arabic usage is "has taken", not "has begotten".
What the Qur'an says is that Christians who believe in the doctrine of Trinity are saying that God "had taken a son". The doctrine of Trinity has it that the 3 Persons of the Godhead are..God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The 3 Persons of the Godhead are co-equal in essence and attributes. God the Father "takes" Jesus as "the Son", that's why Jesus is called the Son, God the Father is called the Father. This is a divine relationship calling (that "taking") the 3 Persons as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
In the Qur'anic sense, the term "ittakhaza" is pointing out that there is no such thing as God taking anything as having the status of sonship. The verse Qur'an 19:88 negates such a doctrine as in the doctrine of Trinity. It rejects just any form of sonship. The Qur'an doesn't say that Christians believe Jesus is the literal biological son of God, it rejects just any inkling to relating sonship to God. Another verse in the Qur'an confirms this,
wa qaalat Al-Yahoud wa An-Nasara nahnu abna'ullahi wa ahibba'uh.
and the Jews and Christians say that "we are the sons of God and His beloved"
[Qur'an 5:18]
Does the verse Qur'an 5:18 mean to say that the Jews and Christrians believe that they are literal and biological sons of God? Surely not!! The Qur'an finds that such a claim attributing just any form of sonship to God is repugnant and erroneous. Just as saying that Jesus as "Son of God" is erroneous, which belies God's divine majesty. God has no need of any sonship. Except that He needs all his creatures to be his slaves/servants as we have "Abdullah" i.e., the slave/servant of God. The term "Ibnullah" i.e., son of God is not acceptable to God.
Indeed, the Qur'an has verse like,
lam yalid wa lam youlad.
(God) begets not, nor was He begotten.
[Qur'an 112:3]
Actually verse Qur'an 112:3 is a generalization negating all forms of blasphemous doctrines and beliefs that the Godhead can beget or is begotten. It's not particually pointing to a specific religion.
As for some English translations of Qur'an 19:88,
YUSUFALI: They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
PICKTHAL: And they say: The Beneficent hath taken unto Himself a son.
SHAKIR: And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken (to Himself) a son.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/019.qmt.html
Notice that the translation by Yusuf Ali has "ittakhaza" translated as "begotten" is erroneous. Whereas Pickhall and Shakir translate as "taken" which conforms with the Arabic sense of the verb.
Even in an Indonesian translation of the Qur'an, we have "ittakhaza" in Qur'an 19:88 translated as ...
Dan mereka berkata: "Tuhan yang Maha Pemurah mengambil (mempunyai) anak"
[Al-Qur'an Dan Terjemahannya, page 472]
The word "mengambil" means "taken". Should the meaning of "ittakhaza" also mean "begotten", then in the Qur'an itself we have a verse like ...
wa annahu ta'alaa jaddu Rabbina ma ittakhaza sahibat(an) wa la walad(an)
[Al-Qur'an 72:3]
Which when taking "ittakhaza" as "begotten", the verse above will be translated as "and exalted is the Majesty of our Lord! He has not begotten either a wife or a son" which in this sense, the Arabic "ittakhaza" translated as begotten is VERY ABSURD !!! The correct translation should be, "and exalted is the Majesty of our Lord! He has not taken either a wife or a son".
The bottom line is, the Qur'an does not teach that Christians
believe that Jesus is literal biological Son of God. It rejects any form of sonship
related to God. Sometimes its the problem with dubious translations and many Muslims make
this kind of mistakes by relying too much on a translation without looking at the Arabic
sense.
Back to Answering Trinity section.
Son of GOD in the Bible disproves trinity.
The definition of "Son of God" in Islam.
"Son of Man" does not mean "GOD" or "Son of GOD".
"Son of GOD" conflict between the Bible and the Noble Quran.
"Son of God" is same as "Servant of God" in Hebrew. Bible agrees with Islam, not with pagan trinity.