ARIUS:

It is often said that Muhammad At:a: Ar Rah:ma:n in his book Jesus :Prophet
Of 'Islam
has commited great errors in general and ingard to Arius in particular. The
said author was never a scholar of 'Isla:m and his book was never considered
as a authentic book of 'isla:m. How ever it might have purporated so. But now
it is necessary to discuss Arius froms Pure Sunni Ppoint ov view.
Islam is not responsisble for the auther named Ata Ur Rahman or At:a Ar
Rah:ma:n inand his book in the least meaning of the word resposibility.
Discussion
Although Arius was the one of the last scholars who tried to response to
Athanasian Heresy of Trinity, yet Arias was also a sort of heretic.
In many issues he was a heretic. But not in the meaning of Athanasians who
call Arius and Arianism as Heresy.
But in the meaning that even he was bette then a lot of other heretics yet he
did have some Heretic ideas in his system.
It is often said that Arius did not denied the Divinity of Iesous yet he belived
him as a lower God or as a Demigod. A God which is oftem spelled in English
with a small g in the beginning as "god" instead of a God.
Thus Arius is accused of Polytheism and Henothiesm.
May be he was a Polytheist in some sence but if he was so it is still incorrect
to assume that He was representing the Truth of Real Teaching of Iesous
every where. Yet he was correctly opposing the Athanasian Dogma of Trinity
since it was neither in the teaching of Iesous nor in Tanach.
Unfortunately some Muslim Scholars have incorrectly Assumed that Arius was
representing the true teachings of Iesous . So this gave a golden chance to a
number of Anti Unity Trinitarians to shew differences between Islamic
believes and Arian Believes.
It is said that although Arius was of the belief that the Christ/Word/Son was a
creation of God yet in some sense he was God or god. This is purely
UnIslamic and Anti Islamic view.
He ascribed some Attributes of God to the Christ.
This accusation may be true if not surely true. In this case it may be clearified
Once for All Times that it is imcorrect to assume that Arius was a Pure

Monotheist. He may have some Polythiestic or even Trinitarian Tendencies.

After all he was a Pouline Christian and not a Hebraic Christian.
In this case the most important thing to be noted is that if Arius did hold
some Tendencies of Polythiesm it only means he was a better Heretic then
Athanasius. This is the point which is often neglected by some Muslim
Scholars since they did not studied Arianism in its detail. How ever some
Muslim Scholars accuse Anti Arius Trinitarians for misinterpreting views of
Arius.
This is an other point.
Any how it is almost a fact that Paul with all his heresies was a believer in
Subordination and was not a Trinitarian.
So if may be the case that Arius was a better follower of Paul then
Athanasias.
It is often said that Arius was a believer in three Gods. Father was the
Supreme God and Son/Word and Holy Spirit were inferior Gods. Some what
like Henotheism or Indian Polythiesm where inferior Gods exist side by side
with the God the Supreme Being.
How ever it may be the case that this is a misinterpretation of what Arius
believed in.
One cannot be convined by the Anti Trinitarian interpretations of Arius, But if
it is true then Arius' Monotheism is not the Monotheism of Judaism as
incorrectly assummed by some Muslims Scholars.
Thus Arius was a polythiest If he did believed so.
But if Arius did not then he was not.
Even then Arius may hold some Anti Islamic believes.
One cannot deny this unless and otherwise each and every belief ascribed to
Arius is studied in its proper context and it is also studied whether Arius is
misterpreted or Correctly Interpreted.
He might have used the word Generation of Begetting in regard to God.
These things are purely UnIslamic and Anti-Islamic. Thus Arius did have
UnIslamic and Anti-Islamic tendencies.
He might have considered Christ is an Inferior God, He might have been
rightly accused of believing in trithiesm, but he was still better then
Athanasias who placed Two Creations Of God in the Godhead of God and

reduced the God into a Hypostasis of God and hypothiesd a Triune God which
never Exist.
Thus the God was reduced to a Hypostasis from a Supreme Being and in
place of the God a Triune God was placed.
In this regard Arius was better.
In may be hard to make a Trinitarian to understand the sensiblities of a
believers of Pure Unity like Judaism and Islam.
But one may try to provide some sense.
Suppose that some one places an other person in Godhead , by Claiming that
he is the forth Person in Godhead. This is sometime called Quaternity or
Quantinity .
Now if to believe in a person in Godhead as a Forth Divine Person in Godhead
appears to be even worse than Arianism to Trinitarians , a similar position
may be assumed about the sensibility of Pure Initarians in regard to
Athanasianism .
That is why they consider Arianism some what better.