32

Cet article explore la perception du concile de Nicée (325) chez cinq intellectuels musulmans arabes du XXIe siècle, analysant leur compréhension des motifs de sa convocation, des groupes impliqués et des débats théologiques qui s’y sont tenus. Il examine leur appréciation du concile comme instance d’autorité ainsi que leurs positions contrastées envers Arius, entre héraut du monothéisme et penseur en rupture, tout en interrogeant la méthodologie de leurs sources. À l’occasion du 1700e anniversaire de ce concile œcuménique majeur, l’étude évalue si l’approche musulmane contemporaine se limite à une reprise des discours anciens ou propose une lecture nouvelle, enrichie par les études historiques et le dialogue interreligieux.

This article explores the perception of the Council of Nicaea (325) in the writings of five 21st Century Arab Muslim intellectuals and scholars. The author analyzes their understanding of the reasons for the council’s convocation, their presentation of the groups involved, their interpretation of the debates held and the decisions taken. He also examines their appreciation of the Council as both an institutional mechanism and a theological authority. Particular attention is given to their contrasting positions toward Arius, seen by some as a herald of pure monotheism, by others as a thinker whose views conflicted with divine unity. The study identifies the main sources these authors rely on, and questions their methodological relevance. On the occasion of the 1700th anniversary of the ecumenical council par excellence, this article offers insight into contemporary Muslim perspective on a major event in Christian history, and raises a central question : is this merely a repetition of traditional narratives, or does it reflect a renewed interpretation, shaped by recent historical studies and the dynamics of interreligious dialogue?