Specific ahadith testify that Muhammad (allegedly) thought of himself as a defender and promulgater of Arianism, meaning the views held by the 4th century AD heretic Arius who taught that Christ as the Logos was the first creature of God, through whom he created the ages and everything else. This is derived from a supposed letter that Muhammad wrote to the Byzantine emperor and Chalcedonian Christian Heraclius.
Here’s what the letter supposedly stated:
Heraclius then asked for the letter addressed by Allah’s Apostle which was delivered by Dihya to the Governor of Busra, who forwarded it to Heraclius to read. The contents of the letter were as follows:
“In the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad the slave of Allah and His Apostle to Heraclius the ruler of Byzantine. Peace be upon him, who follows the right path. Furthermore I invite you to Islam, and if you become a Muslim you will be safe, and Allah will double your reward, and if you reject this invitation of Islam you will be committing a sin of Arisiyin (الاريوسيين) (tillers, farmers i.e. your people). And (Allah’s Statement:)
‘O people of the scripture! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but Allah and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (those who have surrendered to Allah).’ (3:64).
Abu Sufyan then added, “When Heraclius had finished his speech and had read the letter, there was a great hue and cry in the Royal Court… (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1, Number 6 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7)
And here’s another version of the aforementioned letter:
19 Jihad
(4a) Chapter: Writing to non-believers and Summoning them to Islam – Section 1
Ibn ‘Abbas told that the Prophet wrote to Qaisar summoning him to Islam. He sent Dihya al-Kalbi with his letter to him and ordered him to hand it to the governor of Busra for him to convey to Qaisar. Its contents were:
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. From Muhammad, God’s servant and Messenger, to Hiraql1 chief of the Byzantines. Peace be to those who follow the guidance. To proceed: I send you the summons to accept Islam (bi da’iyat al-islam). If you accept Islam you will be safe, and if you accept Islam God will bring you your reward twofold; but if you turn away you will be guilty of the sin of your followers (al-arisiyin).2 “0 people of the Book, come to a word which is common between us and you, that we should worship only God, not attribute any partner to Him, or take one another as lords apart from God. But if they turn away say, Testify that we are Muslims.”3
1. Heraclius.
2. Arisi means a tiller of the soil, but is here used as a general reference to the common people who will follow his example.
3. Al-Qur’an; 3:64.
(Bukhari and Muslim.) A version by Muslim has “From Muhammad God’s Messenger,” “the sin of al-yarisiyin” and bi-di’ayat al-islam.
Reference: Mishkat al-Masabih 3926
In-book reference: Book 19, Hadith 138 (sunnah.com https://sunnah.com/mishkat:3926; emphasis mine)
Contrary to the translators’ rendering, the expression Al-Arisiyin (الاريوسيين) actually means “the Arians,” not followers, tillers of the soil, farmers etc. It is derived from the Arabic form of Arius’ name (اريوس – plural يين).
WHO WERE THE ARISIYYIN?
Arisiyyin or Yarisyyin was the word the Apostle used in his letter to Heraclius. No other letter written to any other Arab or non-Arab king and potentate contains the word whose significance is disputed by the scholars of hadith and lexicographers. According to one version it is the plural of Arisi which means the servants and the peasants.1 2
Ibn Manzur makes it out as a synonym for cultivators in the Lisan al-Arab and cites Thatab as the authority for this view. He also quotes Ibn al-‘Arabi in his support but, at the same time, he adduces a quotation from Abu ‘Ubaydah to show that the word also means the chief or the elder who is obeyed or whose orders are carried out.1
Now the question arises that if Arisiyyin means peasants, it should have been employed to denote the subjects of Chosroes rather than the population of Byzantine Empire. The class of cultivators was by far more numerous under the Persian Empire and formed the chief source of its revenues. Ibn Manzur has cited Azhari who says, “The people of Iraq who followed the religion of Chosroes were peasants and countrymen. The Romans were artisans and craftsmen and, therefore, they nicknamed the Magians the arisin which meant that they were peasants. Arabs also used to call the Persians fallahm or the peasants.”1
Arisin has also been interpreted as denoting Arians or the followers of Arius (280-336) who was the founder of a well-known Christian sect. The doctrine of Arius hovered for a long time between acceptance and rejection as the official creed of the Byzantine Empire, it upheld the Unity of God and denied the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. In other words Arianism maintained a complete distinction between the Creator and the creature, and subordiancy of the latter. In short, Arius held that the characteristics of the One and Only God are solitude and eternity and He puts forth nothing on the earth from His own substance. God brought into being an independent substance as the instrument by which all things were created. This being is termed according to Arius, Wisdom, Son, Image, Word, etc. in the scripture. The Son is not truly God, but is only the so-called Word and Wisdom. Like all rational beings, the Son is endowed with free will. He is not absolute but only a relative, he is Knowledge of the Father.2
James Mackinon writes in his book From Christ to Constantine:
Arius insisted that God alone is primeval, eternal and infinite; naught is consubstantial with Him. He it is who brought the Son into existence and, therefore, the Son is not eternal. God was not Father always; a time was there when the Son did not exist at all. The Son has an independent substance not shared by God for the Son is susceptible to change and contingencies. He cannot, therefore, be called God although he has perfection in his being. At any rate, He is a perfect being.3
The Church of Alexandria had, by the fourth century, come round to hold the view that the Father and Son were identical in nature, and that the Son was equal to, independent of, and contemporaneous with the Father. Arius, the presbyter of the district of Baucalis, disputed this view and was condemned by a local synod which met at Alexandria in 321 ad. Arius left Alexandria but the controversy between him and Bishop Alexander continued to be fought out not only among churchmen and thinkers but in the barbershops and among the longshoremen. After trying hard to stay out of the quarrel, and urging the bishops to stop discussing it, Constantine realised that it needed to be settled, but he did not succeed in his effort. In 325 ad he summoned the first council of the whole of the church—a council called ecumenical, at Nicaea, across the straits from Constantinople, which was attended by 2,030 bishops. Constantine was disposed. (Shaykh Abul Asan Al Nadwi, Prophet Of Mercy (Nabiyy-i Rahmat) [Turath Publishing, 2014], translated by Dr. Mohiuddin Ahmad, pp. 264-265 https://archive.org/stream/EnglishBooksCollection_201712/TheProphetOfMercys_djvu.txt)
1 See Nawawi’s Commentary on Muslim, and Majma Bihar al-Anwar by Muhammad Patni.
2 Lisan al-Arab, see “Aris.” (Ibid., p. 264)
1 Lisan al-‘Arab, see Aris.
2 Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. I, Art. “Arianism” p. 777…
3 James Mackinon, From Jesus to Constantine. Lon, 93 (Ibid., p. 265)
Another Muslim source notes:
6. Recognizing that there has been a large variety of views regarding the voweling and meaning of the term “al-arisiyyin,” the author appended a footnote in which he preferred its meaning as “subjects.” This view was based on the Nihayat of Ibn al Athir and other dictionaries of the Arabic language, q.v. Rum. Another meaning of the term, which does not at all seem improbable, is “Arians.” In this case the Prophet would seem to be giving Heraclius the alternative of accepting the monotheism of Islam or of remaining a trinitarian Christian. In the latter case, the emperor would fall under a new indictment of heresy regarding the truth of Jesus Christ which Islam was teaching IN CONSONANCE WITH ARIANISM. – Tr. (Muḥammad Ḥusayn Haykal, The Life of Muḥammad, translated from the 8th edition of Hayat Muhammad by Ismaʼil R. Al-Faruqi [American Trust Publications, 1976], p. 592; bold and capital emphasis mine)
Muhammad was therefore insinuating that Heraclius would suffer for the guilt of the followers of Arius, perhaps because of the supposed persecution they underwent for their heretical views by Trinitarians.
If this is correct then this confirms the observations of the renowned church father and theologian John of Damascus who, in the eighth century, wrote a tract on Islam. John wrote:
There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’ [99] These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabár, which means great. [100] And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, [101] devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration. (St. John of Damascus: Critique of Islam; bold emphasis mine)
The Islamic scripture itself can be read through the lenses of Arianism since it contains statements which affirm Jesus’ divine prehuman existence, as well as his servile status as a human messenger of Allah.
O People of the Book! Go not beyond the limits in your way of life and say not about God but The Truth: That the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was a Messenger of God and His Word that He cast to Mary and a Spirit from Him (wa-kalimatuhu al-qaha ila maryama wa-ruhin minhu). So believe in God and His Messengers. And say not: Three. To refrain yourselves from it is better for you. There is only One God. Glory be to Him that He have a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in and on the earth and God sufficed as a Trustee. S. 4:171 (Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/st46.htm)
Note how the following versions translate the relevant part of the aforementioned text:
“… The Messiah, ´Isa son of Maryam, was only the Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He cast into Maryam, and a Spirit from Him…” (Aisha Bewley https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/st6.htm)
“… Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was merely God´s messenger and His word which He cast into Mary, and a spirit [proceeding] from Him…” (T. B. Irving https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/st47.htm)
As the preexistent Word Jesus proceeded from Allah as a Spirit and came into Mary for the express of taking on flesh from her blessed, holy, and virginal body.
At the same time, the Quran contains statements such as the following:
The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; Messengers before him passed away; his mother was a just woman; they both ate food. Behold, how We make clear the signs to them; then behold, how they perverted are! S. 5:75 Arberry
And when the son of Maryam (Mary) is quoted as an example [i.e. ‘Iesa (Jesus) is worshipped like their idols), behold! Your people cry aloud (laugh out at the example). And say: “Are our aliha (gods) better or is he [‘Iesa (Jesus)]?” They quoted not the above example except for argument. Nay! But they are a quarrelsome people. [(See VV. 21:97-101) – The Qur’an.] He [‘Iesa (Jesus)] was not more than a slave. We granted Our Favour to him, and We made him an example to the Children of Israel (i.e. his creation without a father). S. 43:57-59 Hilali-Khan
These can either be read along Arian lines, or they can be viewed as blatant contradictions in which the author(s) and/or editor(s) taught two conflicting views of Christ. I.e., in certain places the Quran affirms that Jesus is the eternal, divine Logos/Word, and yet elsewhere it relegates him to the status of a creature.
FURTHER READING
Answering Islam Blog 