(Ibid) To sum up...

(Ibid) To sum up, we can say that several categories which normally are called evil are either non-existence and privation (as the lack of the deserved perfection) or originate somehow from nonexistence (like the pains) or bring about some privation whether directly (like malefic actions) or indirectly (like the vices and immoral dispositions). So, we find that in all these various categories, what originally should be considered as evil is nothing but nonexistence and privation.

The Grounds of TNNE How are the adherents of TNNE to justify their belief? In the works of Muslim philosophers, we may distinguish three different approaches: I. To claim that TNNE is self-evident Mulla Sadra expresses this claim in the following passage: "There is no doubt that existence is, in itself, good and glory and nonexistence is, in itself, evil. And this is the judgment of the primordial nature." (Mulla Sadra, 1990a, p.

121)15 It is helpful to notice that if we accept this claim we should consider philosophers' exploration and analysis of several types of evil to disclose its non-existential nature as mere admonitions (tanbihat) and reminders. This is because Muslim philosophers commonly maintain the possibility of some evident proposition being obscure for some people (due to certain reasons). In this case some reminders and admonitions may be required in order to make the proposition acceptable.

However, it seems that most of Muslim philosophers were not ready to confine themselves to this claim and thus tried to provide some further grounds. To explore several types of evil The second way is to explore several types of evils in order to show that in all cases the essential evil is a kind of privation (We considered one example of this approach in Avicenna). This approach sometimes has been considered as an attempt to present a kind of inductive argument.

This interpretation, however, has raised an objection based on the weak logical status of induction: inductive arguments are not logically valid arguments and thus, can not result in certain conclusions. Therefore, no inductive argument can conclusively provide adequate support for TNNE .

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, for example, puts his objection in this way: This [i.e., to justify TNNE on the basis of exploring several types or instances of evils] is to rely on just a few examples and you have known that this does not cause any certainty. (Al-Razi and al-Tusi, 1404, part 2, p. 80).