Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
html
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.
Arius was NOT A FOLLOWER of Judo Christianity but of Pouline Christianity , so
he must have been a Heretic since Paul was so, but still less than
Aathanasius.
Judo Christianity is very close to the original teaching of Iesous Kristos.
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
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.