و القائلون باشتراكه اللفظي بين الأشياء أو بين الواجب و...

و القائلون باشتراكه اللفظي بين الأشياء أو بين الواجب و الممكن إنما ذهبوا إليه حذرا من لزوم السنخية بين العلة و المعلول مطلقا أو بين الواجب و الممكن و رد بأنه يستلزم تعطيل العقول عن المعرفة فإنا إذا قلنا الواجب موجود فإن كان المفهوم منه المعنى الذي يفهم من وجود الممكن لزم الاشتراك المعنوي و إن كان المفهوم منه ما يقابله و هو مصداق نقيضه كان نفيا لوجوده تعالى عن ذلك و إن لم يفهم منه شي‏ء كان تعطيلا للعقل عن المعرفة و هو خلاف ما نجده من أنفسنا بالضرورة 1.2.

THE CONCEPT OF EXISTENCE IS UNIVOCAL Existence is predicated of different existents in a single sense, i.e., univocally ( ishtirak ma’nawi ). A proof of it is that we divide existence into its different categories, such as the existence of the Necessary Being ( wujud al-wajib ) and the existence of the contingent being ( wujud al-mumkin ). The existence of the contingent is divided into that of substance (wujud al-jawhar) and that of accident ( wujud al-mumkin ).

The existence of substance and the existence of accident are again divided into their various kinds. It is evident that the validity of a division depends on the unity of what is being divided and on its presence in all its divisions. Another proof of it is that after positing the existence of something, at times we have doubts about its essential characteristics.

For instance, after affirming the existence of a creator for the world, we may have doubts as to whether the creator is a necessary ( wajib ) or a contingent ( mumkin ) being, or as to whether or not he is characterized with quiddity (mahiyyah). Or, for instance, after affirming that man has a soul ( nafs ), we may have doubts as to whether it is material ( maddi ) or immaterial ( mujarrad ), a substance (jawhar) or an accident (‘arad).

Hence, if ‘existence’ were not univocal in the different instances and were it an equivocal or homonymous term with disparate meanings ( mushtarak lafzi ), its meaning would necessarily vary from one subject of which it is predicated to another. Another proof is that non-existence ( ‘adam ) is the contradictory of existence ( wujud ): non-existence is univocal, because there, are no distinctions ( tamayuz ) in non-existence.

Hence, existence, which is the contradictory of non-existence, is also univocal, for otherwise it would imply a violation of the law of contradiction, which is impossible. Those who have held that ‘existence’ is equivocal in relation to different existents, i.e.