Did the early Christian sects say that Jesus is the Son of God in the sense of being literally God's begotten son? And do today's Christians, by their statement that Christ is the Son of God, mean a metaphorical sense? And are they, by that, considered not polytheists, but rather disbelievers for describing God in an unfitting manner, distorting God's words, and denying what Muhammad (peace be upon him) brought?

The claim that the sonship of Christ and his attribution to God are akin to "the she-camel of God" and "the House of God" is a false assertion, unsubstantiated in both wording and meaning, and inconsistent with the belief of contemporary Christians regarding Christ.

If a Christian makes such a claim, the discussion with them should be directed towards two main points:

1. The attribution in "the she-camel of God" and "the House of God" does not in any way imply that they possess any divine or Lordly characteristics or attributes, nor do they deserve any type of worship. Directing worship to other than God is polytheism (shirk). If they acknowledge this, it necessarily follows that they must acknowledge that today's churches are built upon major shirk by their worship of Christ and his mother.

2. Even if we assume that all Christians today do not associate partners with God, this does not erase the stain of disbelief from them until they believe in all the messengers, the last of whom is Muhammad, peace be upon him, and all the heavenly messages, the last of which is Islam.