[Cronos]

From the CAtholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org)

But the technical terms of doctrine were not fully defined; and even in Greek words like essence (ousia), substance (hypostasis), nature (physis), person (hyposopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from the pre-Christian sects of philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The adaptation of a vocabulary employed by Plato and Aristotle to Christian truth was a matter of time; it could not be done in a day; and when accomplished for the Greek it had to be undertaken for the Latin, which did not lend itself readily to necessary yet subtle distinctions. That disputes should spring up even among the orthodox who all held one faith, was inevitable. And of these wranglings the rationalist would take advantage in order to substitute for the ancient creed his own inventions. The drift of all he advanced was this: to deny that in any true sense God could have a Son; as Mohammed tersely said afterwards, "God neither begets, nor is He begotten" (Koran, 112). Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate." Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was "unlike" the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.

[olde north church]

[I to am using the Catholic Encyclopaedia as source}
I find Arianism, this particular "chapter" quite interesting. I would like to request a continuence while I gather my thoughts on the matter. I do personally believe one of the major difficulties as the church was being organized was the translations between Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Egyptian and Farsi.
The drift of all he advanced was this: to deny that in any true sense God could have a Son; as Mohammed tersely said afterwards, "God neither begets, nor is He begotten" (Koran, 112).Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius.
I do believe there is some proverb about a finding a truffle once in a while. To extrapolate a linkage between Arianism and Islam based upon a verse would be akin to some future historian finding congruence between revolutionaries in 2091 and French revolutionaries based upon the motto of "Liberte, Egalitie, Fraternite". It's a false comparison. More will follow.
With respect,
onc