Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Real Islamic Logic

JanAldert Bergstra

University of Amsterdam

1

(March 24, 2011)

www.arxiv.org

www.alhassanain.org/english

Notice:

Thisworkispuplished on behalf of www.alhassanain.org/english.

The typing errors are not corrected.

Table of Contents

Abstract 5

1. Introduction 6

1.1 Logic applied to a specific religion 7

1.2 Usage of language 7

1.3 The problematic status of speculative thought 7

1.4 About the external position 8

1.5 Novelty remains to be seen 9

2 Four conceptions of Islamic Logic 10

2.1 Historic topic 10

2.2 Holistic conception 10

2.3 A manifestation of Jihad: Real Islamic Logic (RIL) 10

2.4 Cresent-star Logic 11

3 A community oriented description of Islam 13

3.1 Extension independent aspects of Islam 14

3.2 A stratified membership description 15

3.3 Qualification of views and activities 16

3.4 Some reflection on the use of a religious adjective 18

3.4.1 Religious labeling of material objects, books, theories and thoughts 19

3.4.2 An instrumental view on the label Islamic 20

4 Comparing Real Islamic Logic and Islamic Finance 21

4.1 Comparing IF and RIL in some detail 21

4.2 Comparing Crescent-star Finance and Crescent-star Logic 24

5 Objectives of Real Islamic Logic 25

5.1 Islamic Finance requires Real Islamic Logic 25

5.2 The role of Real Islamic Logic in more detail 25

5.3 Islamic Court Legal Proposition Processing 26

5.4 Technical objectives and methods of Real Islamic Logic (RIL) 27

5.5 Feasibility of RIL and RIL oriented research 29

6 Business ethics risk analysis for RIL development 30

6.1 Restating the orientation towards a RIL supported ICLPP 30

6.2 Working on the basis of randomized source documents 31

6.2.1 Centralization: a risk provoked by Islamic Finance? 31

6.2.2 Genetic programming needed? 32

6.3 Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) 32

6.3.1 A SWOT from a simulated internal perspective 33

6.3.2 A SWOT diagram from an friendly external perspective 34

6.3.3 A SWOT diagram from a cautious external perspective 34

6.4 Integrating the SWOT diagrams 35

6.4.1 Moral issues concerning the outsider’s position 35

6.4.2 Comparison with defense system oriented research considered flawed 36

7 God’s existence as an AI motivated hypothesis 38

7.1 Making the existence of a god explicit 38

7.1.1 Irrationality of an existence assumption denied 38

7.1.2 Deductive, inductive, conductive, abductive, and productive arguments 39

7.2 Virtues of the existence assumption 40

7.3 Weaknesses of this “proof” 41

8 Concluding remarks 42

References 43

Notes 45

Abstract

Four options for assigning a meaning to Islamic Logic are surveyed including a new proposal for an option named Real Islamic Logic (RIL). That approach to Islamic Logic should serve modern Islamic objectives in a way comparable to the functionality of Islamic Finance.

The prospective role of RIL is analyzed from several perspectives: (i ) parallel distributed systems design, (ii) reception by a community structured audience, (iii) informal logic and applied non-classical logics, and (iv) (in)tractability and artificial intelligence.

1. Introduction

Islamic Logic is often used as a label for Arabic logic which flourished between 900 and 1500. Indeed a rich literature on logic and philosophy has been produced which merits descriptions like Arabic Logic, Arabic School of Logic, and perhaps less plausible Islamic Logic. Many scholarly works have been written about that period and aspect of Arabic culture as well including the reception of Aristotelian logic.

Using Islamic Logic primarily as a pointer to a part of the history of logic is in marked contrast with the common usage of the phrase “Islamic Finance”, nowadays mainly perceived as an indication for a modern and thriving phenomenon which must not be understood through its centuries old historic roots but instead should preferably be understood as a form of Jihad.2

Consequential to the reception of Aristotelian logic, the logic of syllogisms has been criticized by Islamic scholars. The ample existence of this criticism may lead one to believe that Islam has been and perhaps still is rather pessimistic about logic.3 That far reaching conclusion, however, becomes less defensible if one imagines that these critical scholars simply saw no plausible way for Greek logicians to arrive at the universally quantified assertions from which they went onwards with reasoning by means of instantiation as incorporated in various syllogisms (see RuthMas [30]). Universally quantified assertions cannot be “sensed” and for that reason they can be constructions of the individual mind only, thus lacking the required “objectivity” so it was argued. That a modern scientific process may generate universally quantified assertions which are considered objectively valid was unknown in the days when syllogistic logic came under attack of Arabic scholars.

Their criticism need not be construed as an outcome of religious contemplation.

Fortunately (for Islamic scholars) the revealed sources, which wereunaccessible to ancient Greek scholars, codified after having been made available through prophecy, could produce fully reliable universally quantified assertions. This observation, perhaps more adequately understood as a design decision about the basis of logical reasoning, then provided a clever way to solve a pressing problem in the philosophy of science, but nowadays it represents an outdated view. A modern perspective on science, with its method for generating universally quantified statements acceptable for entire communities rather than for single individuals only, implies that formalized logic can be accepted more easily, and implies that the mechanics of reasoning need not be made exclusively dependent on the existence of revealed sources. Summing up these arguments I see no reason to believe that Islam is nowadays intrinsically hostile towards methodical reasoning on the basis of large collections of assumptions, neither do I believe that Islam is committed to the viewpoint that only assertions obtained directly or indirectly from revealed sources can be both universal and valid. In addition there is no compelling reason why a systematic investigation of reasoning processes (that is logic as a branch of mathematics, science and philosophy) should be considered incompatible with Islam. Nevertheless the contemporary tolerance of Islam towards logic seems not to have given rise to any specific developments that may foster the usability of logic for Islam.

Most developments of applied logic remain within a limited set of domains: computing (very significant), mathematics (limited), physics (very limited),economics (marginal but growing alongside the explosion of electronic trade), law (still marginal but steadily growing), linguistics (large but perhaps on the way back), psychology (marginal and perhaps even declining), and philosophy (marginal and stable).

Now there is no technical reason why applications of logic to religion and in particular to some specific religion cannot be developed. Of course a logician may be unwilling to work towards progress in that direction, but however distant religion may be considered from science that distance by itself cannot rule out a potential for applications of logic in that direction.4 This paper analyses a perspective for an application of logic within Islam from a position outside Islam.5

1.1 Logic applied to a specific religion

If one accepts that logic may be applied to or within a religion in spite of the fact that logic is a constituent of science and philosophy whereas religion is not, there are still many ways in which this kind of application can be conceived. I will refrain from an attempt to survey these options and focus on one particular view only which likely to be specific for Islam.

Working towards a definite and applicable form of Islamic Logic may be conceived of as an instance ofIslamization of modernity, with conventional formal logic considered modern.Islamization of modernity also underlies Islamic Finance. ThroughIslamization of the logic of legal argument, and successive application of that logic for structuring legal reasoning, legal arguments may become more transparent and more convincing, thereby promoting underlying values of Islam in a novel fashion. In this way Islamic Logic may be considered a potential manifestation of Jihad.6

1.2 Usage of language

In this text I will avoid Arabic terms as much as possible based on the hypothesis that the fundamental content of Islam is international and language independent. Unavoidably translations are used, for instance instead ofShari’ah I will use Islamic Legal Process, and instead of Allah I will write God.7

1.3 The problematic status of speculative thought

Writing this paper has proven difficult for various reasons. First of all there is no way that I can take into account or even become aware of the enormous literature which has been accumulated regarding the topics that will be covered. Now specialization is a major tool for fighting the enemy of amateurism in research, and reliable claims of novelty are usually based on equally reliable accounts of relevant prior art. But I feel the need to arrive at a comprehensive picture and the objective to achieve some form of completeness when writing this paper has taken priority over scholarly precision concerning the search for backwards pointers to prior art.

Moreover there is a speculative aspect about any development aiming at relating a classical part of science and philosophy (in this case logic) with any form of religion. If one intends to argue that such connections may provide an advantage the story may become even more speculative. Most work on Islamic Finance and Islamic Logic that I have seen avoids speculation by making use of a descriptive style: historical work describes what people did in the past and how we may find out about that, anthropological work looks at I will not make use of a translation of the term Islam. Instead an attempt is made in this paper to provide a working definition of Islam. The translation “submission (to God’s will)” as given by Wikipedia can be used for the purposes of this paper, however.

how small communities deal with some body of methods and concepts, sociological work considers the development of communities at large and economic work takes measurable streams of goods, products and services into account. I try to write about a modernization of Islamic logic with the additional constraint that, although being an outsider, I need to understand and trust the full story including a rationale of Islam and the role that logic may play in that context.

1.4 About the external position

Being an outsider to Islam, and writing from that position, must not primarily be valued as providing a tool for arriving at an objective perspective and for avoiding speculative thoughts.8 Rather taking the external position reflects a fact of the matter which I must in addition take into account without knowing in advance to what extent it simplifies or complicates the task at hand. Working from inside Islam and working from outside Islam provides an author with different interfaces of operational options. An author cannot freely choose and change his position in this respect, as if taking an inside Islamic perspective (from an outsider’s initial position) were conceivable as merely a tailor made and methodologically legitimate anthropological style of work, which can be dispensed with after the planned research activity has been completed, thereby returning to the initial outsider position.

An undeniable obligation for an outsider is to be sufficiently critical. Have I overlooked intrinsic problems of Islam (seen from an outsider’s perspective) that should have been mentioned in this paper? Am I participating in not seeing what needs to be seen? Of course I don’t think so myself. I will return to this difficult issue in the concluding section of the paper. The computer scientist C.A.R. Hoare wrote:

inside every large program is a small program struggling to get out.

This remarkable observation is meaningful (and useful) even if the large program contains many design and programming errors. Transposing Hoare’s observation from the science of computer programming to the study of religions I obtain:

inside a complex religion is a clear core struggling to get out and to become visible and comprehensible from an outsider’s position.

This holds true to a considerable extent in spite of mistakes enacted in the name of that religion. Thus the outsider’s position to a religion may be compared with the informed programmer’s view on a large program written by an unknown software engineering team:

find the core which is struggling to get out, and don’t be distracted from that task by the discovery of programming errors because the existence of programming errors is a statistical fact which cannot undermine the validity of Hoare’s observation.

1.5 Novelty remains to be seen

No claim of novelty of any assertion put forward in this paper can be reliably based on the author’s grasp of the body of published and grey literature relevant for that particular assertion. Even in very confined areas of mathematical logic and the theory of computing it has proven strikingly difficult to find out what has been done by other authors before.9

To the best of my knowledge the proposed description of Real Islamic Logic is new in objective, in form, and in content. The stratified description of Islam seems to be new.

The focus on autonomous parallel legal processing as a key strength worth of preservation and enhancement of the Islamic Legal Process may be new. The excursion in the final section towards an additional (new) argument for assuming the existence of God may alsoconsititute an original contribution.

2 Four conceptions of Islamic Logic

Islamic logic can be understood in four different ways at least, the historic conception and the holistic conception being the only views that we found in the existing literature.

These four understandings of Islamic Logic will be labeled as follows: (i ) historic, (ii) holistic,(iii) Real (Islamic Logic), and (iv) Crescent-Star Logic.10

2.1 Historic topic

The dominant understanding of Islamic Logic is that this refers to a period in the development of logic. Pinpointing that period is rather arbitrary, but 900-1600 is a reasonable guess. It might alternatively, and according to some authors more appropriately, be called Arabic Logic. The term may be compared to: “Roman Architecture”, “French Literature”, “Greek Philosophy”, or “Welsh Poetry”. The historic understanding of Islamic Logic is so widespread that it may be considered the standard meaning of the phrase.

Here are some pointers to the rich literature on the subject: [1], [33], and [36]. Islamic Logic is less formal than present day manifestations of logic. We find that what Islamic Logic as accumulated some 1000 years ago is comparable to what today is called informal logic rather than formal logic or to philosophical logic.

It should be noticed that Islamic Finance seems to have no historic connotation, whereas for instance Islamic Architecture does. Islamic Architecture may be decomposed into historic and modern. Modern Islamic Logic currently seems to be a vacuous concept at present.

2.2 Holistic conception

Islamic logic is sometimes understood as the waymuslims are supposed to think. Such applications of the term are always implicit, never based on a scholarly analysis and may be considered a misuse of the term logic. This form of (mis )use is rather widespread. For instance “Capitalist Logic” may be called into action as a rationale for the dictate that minimal wages must be paid and so on. The phrase “Economic Logic” is often used with a similar holistic interpretation. Its use is almost never convincing and nearly always one might ask: which economic logic is meant in particular. There is no useful connection between the holistic use of logic and logic as a theme in philosophy, mathematics or science.

2.3 A manifestation of Jihad: Real Islamic Logic (RIL)

Novel as far as I know, but nevertheless potentially attractive, is to consider Islamic Logic as a longstanding “project” for the advancement of Islam: Real Islamic Logic. Real Islamic Logic embodies theIslamization of Logic (as a part of modernity) just as Islamic Finance embodies theIslamization of finance. The adjective real is added in order to avoid confusion with the three other conceptions of Islamic Logic. It is conceivable that after due time the “real” can be left out and Islamic Logic has undergone a change of its default meaning.

Below a proposal will be made concerning the table of contents and the repertoire of objectives of Real Islamic Logic. The proposal may be read as a proposed political view on how to advance Islam by way of theIslamization of Logic. In this conception of Islamic Logic the similarity with Islamic Finance is taken to a rather extreme conclusion and all, often implicit, political objectives thatunderly Islamic Finance are considered candidates for being taken into account when developing a specification in detail for the design and development of Real Islamic Logic. If it ever gets off the ground the project of developing a Real Islamic Logic may take centuries rather than decades.

(Real) Islamic Logic can be conceptualized by a non-Islamic author, but it cannot be performed to its full potential without being part of theUmma . For the (non-Islamic)

author of this paper this limitation implies is that he can carry out conceptual work towards the establishment of theIslamization of logic interpretation of Islamic Logic (that is RIL), but he must stop at its doorstep once it has been designed.11

It is not so easy to find a name for an activist and contemporary interpretation of Islamic Logic. I am suggestingto use Real Islamic Logic, thus recognizing and leaving untouched, the currently predominant historic interpretation of the phrase “Islamic Logic”.12

Stopping at the doorstep of Real Islamic Logic may be considered frustrating for a non-muslim intrigued by the subject. This can be solved by recasting the subject in non-Islamic terms. Facilitating that step motivates the fourth and final understanding of Islamic logic.

2.4Cresent -star Logic

Islamic Finance can serve as a role model for the development of Real Islamic Logic. In both cases the projection to a non-religious version of the topic can be performed in a similar fashion. In [5] I have suggested Crescent-star Finance as a reference to Islamic Finance explicitly stripped from itsIslamization of finance perspective. Crescent-star Logic casts Real Islamic Logic as a neutral topic in logic stripped from theIslamization of modernity ideology and stripped from the Islamic tradition.13 Crescent-star Logic does away with the conventional historic perspective of the scholarly interpretation and does away with theJihadic perspective of theIslamization of modernity.14 Crescent-star logic then represents the pure logic of Real Islamic Logic as formulated above. Due to its neutral form Crescent-star Logic should be accessible and legitimate for logicians who oppose the very concept ofIslamization of Logic, assuming that the mere perspective of pure logic in an ideologically biased praxis presents nounsurmountable obstacle.

Progress in Crescent-star Logic may help to improve the usage of logic for the application in Islamic courts. Crescent-star Logic uses and integrates several logical themes which must come together forming a complex of reasoning methods of uncommon complexity:

•paraconsistent logic (local inconsistencies cannot be excluded, not even in the case of a single court), •deontic logic (mostjudgements /assertions are about permissions and prohibitions), • belief revision (courts may withdraw earlier assertions representing court beliefs that have become superseded), • modal logic (in some cases different courts may best be seen as logically existing in different worlds).

1.1. THE SELF-EVIDENT CHARACTER OF THE MEANING OF EXISTENCE

The concept of ‘existence’ is a self-evident one and needs no mediating terms. Hence it has no explanatory terms (mu’arrif ) in the form of a definition (hadd ) or description (rasm ), because its meaning is more obvious than that of any explanatory term. Such definitions as “Existence is what subsists in reality,” or “Existence is that which allows of predication” are explications of the word, not true definitions.

Moreover, as will be explained later, existence has neither any genus (jins ), nor differentia (fasl ), nor any proprium (khassah ) in the sense of one of the five universals (al-kulliyyat al-khams ). As all explanatory terms are based on these, existence can have no definition or description.

الفصل الثاني في أن مفهوم الوجود مشترك معنوي

يحمل الوجود على موضوعاته بمعنى واحد اشتراكا معنويا.

و من الدليل عليه أنا نقسم الوجود إلى أقسامه المختلفة كتقسيمه إلى وجود الواجب و وجود الممكن و تقسيم وجود الممكن إلى وجود الجوهر و وجود العرض ثم وجود الجوهر إلى أقسامه و وجود العرض إلى أقسامه و من المعلوم أن التقسيم يتوقف في صحته على وحدة المقسم و وجوده في الأقسام.

و من الدليل عليه أنا ربما أثبتنا وجود شي‏ء ثم ترددنا في خصوصية ذاته كما لو أثبتنا للعالم صانعا ثم ترددنا في كونه واجبا أو ممكنا و في كونه ذا ماهية أو غير ذي ماهية و كما لو أثبتنا للإنسان نفسا ثم شككنا في كونها مجردة أو مادية و جوهرا أو عرضا مع بقاء العلم بوجوده على ما كان فلو لم يكن للوجود معنى واحد بل كان مشتركا لفظيا متعددا معناه بتعدد موضوعاته لتغير معناه بتغير موضوعاته بحسب الاعتقاد بالضرورة.

و من الدليل عليه أن العدم يناقض الوجود و له معنى واحد إذ لا تمايز في العدم فللوجود الذي هو نقيضه معنى واحد و إلا ارتفع النقيضان و هو محال.

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. in relation to the Necessary Being and contingent beings, have done so in order to avoid the conclusion that there is a similarity (sinkhiyyah ) between cause and effect, or between the Necessary Being and contingent existents. However, such a position stands refuted, because it amounts to suspending the intellect’s cognitive faculties. To elaborate, if in the statement, ‘The Necessary Being exists,’ we understand ‘existence’ to mean the same as what it means in a statement asserting the existence of a contingent being, it implies that ‘existence’ is univocal (mushtarak ma’nawi ). If what is understood in the former statement [by ‘existence’] were the opposite of that which is understood in the latter, being the contradictory of the latter, the statement ‘The Necessary Being exists,’ would amount to the negation of Its existence.

Finally, if nothing were understandable from it, that would amount to a suspension of the intellect’s cognitive faculties, which is not however the state in which we find ourselves.

الفصل الثالث في أن الوجود زائد على الماهية عارض لها

بمعنى أن المفهوم من أحدهما غير المفهوم من الآخر فللعقل أن يجرد الماهية و هي ما يقال في جواب ما هو عن الوجود فيعتبرها وحدها فيعقلها ثم يصفها بالوجود و هو معنى العروض فليس الوجود عينا للماهية و لا جزءا لها.

و الدليل عليه أن الوجود يصح سلبه عن الماهية و لو كان عينا أو جزءا لها لم يصح ذلك لاستحالة سلب عين الشي‏ء و جزئه عنه.

و أيضا حمل الوجود على الماهية يحتاج إلى دليل فليس عينا و لا جزءا لها لأن ذات الشي‏ء و ذاتياته بينة الثبوت له لا تحتاج فيه إلى دليل

و أيضا الماهية متساوية النسبة في نفسها إلى الوجود و العدم و لو كان الوجود عينا أو جزءا لها استحالت نسبتها إلى العدم الذي هو نقيضه

1.3. EXISTENCE IS ADDITIONAL TO QUIDDITY

A thing’s existence is additional to its quiddity, in the sense, that each of them [i.e. ‘existence’ and ‘quiddity’] signifies something not understandable from the other. From existence, the intellect first abstracts [or divests] quiddity, which is represented by the answer to the question, ‘What is it?’ Then the intellect considers it in isolation and attributes existence to it. This is what is meant by predication [‘urud , i.e. ascription of existence to quiddity]. Hence existence is neither identical with quiddity nor a part of it.

A proof of it is that one may properly negate existence in relation to quiddity. Had it been identical with quiddity, or a part of it, such a negation would have been invalid, for it is impossible to negate something in regard to a thing which is identical with it or a part of it.

Also, a proof is required if existence is to be predicated of a quiddity; therefore, it is neither identical with quiddity nor a part of it, because a thing’s essence (dhat ) and its essential characteristics [i.e. genus and differentia] are self-evident and do not stand in need of a proof.

Moreover, quiddity is in itself indifferent (mutasawiyat al-nisbah , lit. ‘equally related’) to existence and non-existence. Were existence identical with quiddity or a part of it, it would be impossible to attribute to it non-existence, which is its contradictory.

الفصل الرابع في أصالة الوجود و اعتبارية الماهية

إنا لا نرتاب في أن هناك أمورا واقعية ذات آثار واقعية ليست بوهم الواهم ثم ننتزع من كل من هذه الأمور المشهودة لنا في عين أنه واحد في الخارج مفهومين اثنين كل منهما غير الآخر مفهوما و إن اتحدا مصداقا و هما الوجود و الماهية كالإنسان الذي في الخارج المنتزع عنه أنه إنسان و أنه موجود.

و قد اختلف الحكماء في الأصيل منهما فذهب المشاءون إلى أصالة الوجود و نسب إلى الإشراقيين القول بأصالة الماهية و أما القول بأصالتهما معا فلم يذهب إليه أحد منهم لاستلزام ذلك كون كل شي‏ء شيئين اثنين و هو خلاف الضرورة.

و الحق ما ذهب إليه المشاءون من أصالة الوجود.

و البرهان عليه أن الماهية من حيث هي ليست إلا هي متساوية النسبة إلى الوجود و العدم فلو لم يكن خروجها من حد الاستواء إلى مستوى الوجود بحيث تترتب عليها الآثار بواسطة الوجود كان ذلك منها انقلابا و هو محال بالضرورة فالوجود هو المخرج لها عن حد الاستواء فهو الأصيل.

و ما قيل إن الماهية بنسبة مكتسبة من الجاعل تخرج من حد الاستواء إلى مرحلة الأصالة فتترتب عليها الآثار مندفع بأنها إن تفاوتت حالها بعد الانتساب فما به التفاوت هو الوجود الأصيل و إن سمي نسبة إلى الجاعل و إن لم تتفاوت و مع ذلك حمل عليها أنها موجودة و ترتبت عليها الآثار كان من الانقلاب كما تقدم

برهان آخر الماهيات مثار الكثرة و الاختلاف بالذات فلو لم يكن الوجود أصيلا لم تتحقق وحدة حقيقية و لا اتحاد بين ماهيتين فلم يتحقق الحمل الذي هو الاتحاد في الوجود و الضرورة تقضي بخلافه فالوجود هو الأصيل الموجود بالذات و الماهية موجودة به.

برهان آخر الماهية توجد بوجود خارجي فتترتب عليها آثارها و توجد بعينها بوجود ذهني كما سيأتي فلا يترتب عليها شي‏ء من تلك الآثار فلو لم يكن الوجود هو الأصيل و كانت الأصالة للماهية و هي محفوظة في الوجودين لم يكن فرق بينهما و التالي باطل فالمقدم مثله.

برهان آخر الماهية من حيث هي تستوي نسبتها إلى التقدم و التأخر و الشدة و الضعف و القوة و الفعل لكن الأمور الموجودة في الخارج مختلفة في هذه الأوصاف فبعضها متقدم أو قوي كالعلة و بعضها بخلاف ذلك كالمعلول و بعضها بالقوة و بعضها بالفعل فلو لم يكن الوجود هو الأصيل كان اختلاف هذه الصفات مستندة إليها و هي متساوية النسبة إلى الجميع هذا خلف و هناك حجج أخرى مذكورة في المطولات.

و للقائلين بأصالة الماهية و اعتبارية الوجود حجج مدخولة كقولهم لو كان الوجود أصيلا كان موجودا في الخارج فله وجود و لوجوده وجود فيتسلسل و هو محال.

و أجيب عنه بأن الوجود موجود لكن بنفس ذاته لا بوجود آخر فلا يذهب الأمر إلى غير النهاية

و يظهر مما تقدم ضعف قول آخر في المسألة منسوب إلى المحقق الدواني و هو أصالة الوجود في الواجب تعالى و أصالة الماهية في الممكنات و عليه فإطلاق الموجود على الواجب بمعنى أنه نفس الوجود و على الماهيات بمعنى أنها منتسبة إلى الوجود كاللابن و التامر بمعنى المنتسب إلى اللبن و التمر هذا و أما على المذهب المختار فالوجود موجود بذاته و الماهية موجودة بالعرض.

1.4. THE FUNDAMENTAL REALITY OF EXISTENCE

We have no doubt that there are real things out there in external reality possessing certain real properties (athar), and that they are not illusory. In regard to each of the things that we observe -  which is a single reality in the external world - we form two concepts different from one another, though they pertain to a single thing. These two concepts are ‘existence’ and ‘quiddity.’ For instance, in regard to a person existing in external reality, we posit his/her quiddity as a ‘human being’ and that he/she exists.

The philosophers (hukama) have differed as to which of the two concepts is fundamental (asil). The Peripatetics (al-Mashsha’un) hold existence to be fundamentally real (asalat al-wujud). The belief in the fundamentality of quiddity (asalat al-mahiyyah) has been ascribed to the Emanationists (al-Ishraqiyyun). The view that both of them may be regarded as fundamentally real is one which no one has held, for that would imply that every thing is two things, which is logically inadmissible.

The Peripatetics are right in holding existence to be fundamentally real. A proof of it is that quiddity as such is indifferent to [or stands in equal relation to] existence and non-existence, and were it capable by itself of emerging from this state of indifference [or neutrality] and assuming existence along with its properties (athar), that would amount to a violation of the law of identity (inqilab; lit. ‘mutation’), which is impossible. Hence it is existence that brings quiddity out of its state of indifference and is fundamentally real.

As to that which some have said, that quiddity emerges from its state of indifference to assume reality through the relation that it acquires with the Maker, such an argument stands refuted. Because the difference in the state of quiddity after its relation with the Maker amounts to existence, though it should be called ‘a relation with the Maker.’ And should there occur no difference in its state, and should existence nevertheless be predicated of it, that would amount to a violation of the law of identity, as mentioned.

Another proof is that quiddities are the source of multiplicity and diversity. Had existence not been fundamentally real, there would have been no real unity, nor any union between two quiddities [in one thing]. As a consequence, there would be no predication, which signifies unity in existence [as in a proposition of the type, ‘A is B’], and logical necessity requires the contrary of it. Hence existence is fundamentally real, existing by itself, and quiddity exists through it.

Another proof is that when quiddity exists externally, it possesses the properties (athar) expected of it. But when quiddity exists through mental existence (wujud dhihni) (which will be dealt with later on), it does not possess any of these properties. So if existence were not real, and were quiddity  -  which is there in both modes of being - real, there would be no difference between these two modes. Since this consequent premise is invalid, the antecedent must also be such.

Another proof is that quiddity as such is indifferent in its relation to priority (taqaddum) and posteriority (ta’khkhur), strength (shiddah) and weakness (da’f), actuality (fi’l) and potentiality (quwwah). However, things existing in external reality differ in regard to these characteristics. Some of

them are prior and strong, such as the cause (‘illah), and some are the opposite of that, such as the effect (ma’lul). Some of them have actuality and some of them possess potentiality. Were existence not fundamentally real, the difference in respect to these characteristics would be attributable to quiddity, which is indifferent in relation to all of them. This involves a contradiction. There are other proofs besides the ones given here and they are mentioned in detailed works.

Those who believe in the fundamental reality of quiddity arid consider existence to be derivative (i’tibari), have offered certain infirm arguments, like the one which says, ‘If existence were fundamentally real, it would exist externally; from which it follows that it has an existence, and that existence again has another existence, and so on ad infinitum. This involves an infinite regress, which is inadmissible.’

The answer to such an argument is that existence does indeed exist; but it exists by itself, not by another existence. So the matter does not lead to an infinite regress.

In the light of what has been said, the infirmity of another view, ascribed to Dawwani, also becomes evident. That view ascribes fundamental reality to existence with respect to the Necessary Being, and to quiddity with respect to contingent beings. According to it, existence is attributable to the Necessary Being in the sense that It is existent by Itself and to quiddities in the sense that they have only a relation with being, such as the relation between the ‘milkman’ (labin) and ‘milk’ (laban) and the ‘date seller’ (tamir) and ‘dates’ (tamr). However, in accordance with the doctrine endorsed by us, existence exists by itself (bi dhatih) and quiddity exists accidentally (bi al-‘arad).

الفصل الخامس في أن الوجود حقيقة واحدة مشككة

اختلف القائلون بأصالة الوجود فذهب بعضهم إلى أن الوجود حقيقة واحدة مشككة و هو المنسوب إلى الفهلويين من حكماء الفرس فالوجود عندهم لكونه ظاهرا بذاته مظهرا لغيره من الماهيات كالنور الحسي الذي هو ظاهر بذاته مظهر لغيره من الأجسام الكثيفة للأبصار.

فكما أن النور الحسي نوع واحد حقيقته أنه ظاهر بذاته مظهر لغيره و هذا المعنى متحقق في جميع مراتب الأشعة و الأظلة على كثرتها و اختلافها فالنور الشديد شديد في نوريته التي يشارك فيها النور الضعيف و النور الضعيف ضعيف في نوريته التي يشارك فيها النور الشديد فليست شدة الشديد منه جزءا مقوما للنورية حتى يخرج الضعيف منه و لا عرضا خارجا عن الحقيقة و ليس ضعف الضعيف قادحا في نوريته و لا أنه مركب من النور و الظلمة لكونها أمرا عدميا بل شدة الشديد في أصل النورية و كذا ضعف الضعيف فللنور عرض عريض باعتبار مراتبه المختلفة بالشدة و الضعف و لكل مرتبة عرض عريض باعتبار القوابل المختلفة من الأجسام الكثيفة.

كذلك الوجود حقيقة واحدة ذات مراتب مختلفة متمايزة بالشدة و الضعف و التقدم و التأخر و غير ذلك فيرجع ما به الامتياز فيها إلى ما به الاشتراك و ما به الاختلاف إلى ما به الاتحاد فليست خصوصية شي‏ء من المراتب جزءا مقوما للوجود لبساطته كما سيجي‏ء و لا أمرا خارجا عنه لأن أصالة الوجود تبطل ما هو غيره الخارج عنه بل الخصوصية في كل مرتبة مقومة لنفس المرتبة بمعنى ما ليس بخارج منها.

و لها كثرة طولية باعتبار المراتب المختلفة الآخذة من أضعف المراتب و هي التي لا فعلية لها إلا عدم الفعلية و هي المادة الأولى الواقعة في أفق العدم ثم تتصاعد المراتب إلى أن تنتهي إلى المرتبة الواجبة لذاتها و هي التي لا حد لها إلا عدم الحد و لها كثرة عرضية باعتبار تخصصها بالماهيات المختلفة التي هي مثار الكثرة.

و ذهب قوم من المشاءين إلى كون الوجود حقائق متباينة بتمام ذواتها أما كونه حقائق متباينة فلاختلاف آثارها و أما كونها متباينة بتمام الذوات فلبساطتها و على هذا يكون مفهوم الوجود المحمول عليها عرضيا خارجا عنها لازما لها.

و الحق أنه حقيقة واحدة مشككة أما كونها حقيقة واحدة فلأنه لو لم تكن كذلك لكانت حقائق مختلفة متباينة بتمام الذوات و لازمه كون مفهوم الوجود و هو مفهوم واحد كما تقدم منتزعا من مصاديق متباينة بما هي متباينة و هو محال بيان الاستحالة أن المفهوم و المصداق واحد ذاتا و إنما الفارق كون الوجود ذهنيا أو خارجيا فلو انتزع الواحد بما هو واحد من الكثير بما هو كثير كان الواحد بما هو واحد كثيرا بما هو كثير و هو محال

و أيضا لو انتزع المفهوم الواحد بما هو واحد من المصاديق الكثيرة بما هي كثيرة فإما أن تعتبر في صدقه خصوصية هذا المصداق لم يصدق على ذلك المصداق و إن اعتبر فيه خصوصية ذاك لم يصدق على هذا و إن اعتبر فيه الخصوصيتان معا لم يصدق على شي‏ء منهما و إن لم يعتبر شي‏ء من الخصوصيتين بل انتزع من القدر المشترك بينهما لم يكن منتزعا من الكثير بما هو كثير بل بما هو واحد كالكلي المنتزع من الجهة المشتركة بين الأفراد الصادق على الجميع هذا خلف.

و أما أن حقيقته مشككة فلما يظهر من الكمالات الحقيقية المختلفة التي هي صفات متفاضلة غير خارجة عن الحقيقة الواحدة كالشدة و الضعف و التقدم و التأخر و القوة و الفعل و غير ذلك فهي حقيقة واحدة متكثرة في ذاتها يرجع فيها كل ما به الامتياز إلى ما به الاشتراك و بالعكس و هذا هو التشكيك.

1.5. EXISTENCE IS ONE GRADATIONAL REALITY

The believers in the fundamental reality of existence disagree amongst themselves. Some of them regard existence as a single gradational reality (haqiqah mushakkakah wahidah). This view is ascribed to the Fahlaviyyun, philosophers of [ancient] Iran. Existence, according to them, is self-manifesting and makes other things - i.e. quiddities - manifest. It may be likened to sensible light, which is self-manifesting and makes other things, such as opaque bodies, manifest to vision.

Sensible light is a single species. Its reality is that it is self-manifesting and manifests things other than itself. This feature applies to all the different grades of light and shade with their multiplicity and diversity. Hence a strong light shares its luminous nature with a weak light, and a weak light shares its luminous nature with a strong one. The strength of a strong light is neither the constituting differentia (juz muqawwim) of its luminous nature, so as to negate the luminous character of weak light, nor is it an accident extraneous to its reality. The weakness of a weak light neither negates its luminous nature, nor is it a compound of light and darkness, for darkness is non-existence of light. The intensity of a strong light inheres in its luminous nature, and so does the weakness of a weak light. Light possesses a wide range in accordance with its various degrees of intensity and weakness, and there is a wide range associated with each of its degrees depending on the varying receptivity of opaque bodies [as in reflection and refraction].

Similarly, existence is one reality with various degrees differentiated by intensity and weakness, priority and posteriority, etc. That which differentiates these degrees of existence is exactly that which is common to them, and that which makes them different is exactly that which makes them one. Hence the particularity of any of these degrees is not a constituting differentia of existence, by virtue of the simplicity (basatah) of existence  - as will be explained later on - nor is it anything extraneous to it. This is because the fundamental reality of existence precludes that there should be anything other than it or external to it. Rather, the particularity of every degree is what constitutes that degree itself and is not something other than it.

The multiplicity in existence pertains to its various vertical (tuli) degrees, beginning from the weakest of degrees  - represented by prime matter, which exists on the verge of non-existence -  where it has no actuality except the absence of actuality. From there it rises in degrees to the level of the Necessary Being, which has no limit except the absence of limit. Also, existence has a horizontal (‘aradi) multiplicity particularized by the various quiddities, quiddity being the source of multiplicity.

A group of Peripatetics have held the view that existence consists of entities essentially disparate  - disparate in their entirety -  from each other (haqa’iq mutabayinah bi tamami dhawatiha). They are disparate because their properties are disparate. The disparity is essential and complete, by virtue of the simplicity of their essences. On the basis of this position, the predication of existence in regard to these entities becomes, of necessity, something accidental and extrinsic to them (for, were it intrinsic to them, it would be a constituent, and this contradicts simplicity).

The truth is that existence is one graded reality. Were it not one reality, entities would have been disparate from one another with the totality of their essences (dhawat). That would entail that the concept of existence, which is a single concept, as said, has been abstracted from disparate things qua disparate things [having no unifying aspect]. This is impossible. To explain, there is an essential unity between a concept and that to which it refers. The factor of disparity lies in existence being mental or external. Were something which is one, qua one, capable of being abstracted from that which is many, qua many, one qua one would be the same as many qua many, which is impossible.

Also, suppose that a single concept were abstracted from a multiplicity of referents qua disparate things. If the concept represented a certain characteristic of one referent, it would not be predicable of a second referent. If the concept represented some characteristic of the second referent, it would not correspond to the first referent. If the characteristics of both the referents were represented in it, it would not correspond to either of the referents; and should none of these two characteristics be taken into consideration and the concept were to represent that which is common to the two referents, such an abstraction could not have been possible from different things qua different things, but from their unifying aspect, such as the abstraction of universals from the common aspect shared by all individuals covered by that universal. This, however, contradicts the assumption.

As to existence being a gradational reality, since it manifests various real perfections that make up the distinctive attributes that are not extraneous” to the single reality of existence, such as intensity and weakness, priority and posteriority, potentiality and actuality, etc., existence is a single reality multiple in its essence, wherein all that makes existents differ refers to what is common to them, and vice versa. This is what is called gradation (tashkik).

الفصل السادس في ما يتخصص به الوجود

تخصص الوجود بوجوه ثلاثة :

أحدها تخصص حقيقته الواحدة الأصلية بنفس ذاتها القائمة بذاتها

و ثانيها تخصصها بخصوصيات مراتبها غير الخارجة عن المراتب

و ثالثها تخصص الوجود بإضافته إلى الماهيات المختلفة الذوات و عروضه لها فيختلف باختلافها بالعرض.

و عروض الوجود للماهية و ثبوته لها ليس من قبيل العروض المقولي الذي يتوقف فيه ثبوت العارض على ثبوت المعروض قبله فإن حقيقة ثبوت الوجود للماهية هي ثبوت الماهية به لأن ذلك هو مقتضى أصالته و اعتباريتها و إنما العقل لمكان أنسه بالماهيات يفترض الماهية موضوعه و يحمل الوجود عليها و هو في الحقيقة من عكس الحمل.

و بذلك يندفع الإشكال المعروف في حمل الوجود على الماهية من أن قاعدة الفرعية أعني أن ثبوت شي‏ء لشي‏ء فرع ثبوت المثبت له توجب ثبوتا للمثبت له قبل ثبوت الثابت فثبوت الوجود للماهية يتوقف على ثبوت الماهية قبله فإن كان ثبوتها عين ثبوته لها لزم تقدم الشي‏ء على نفسه و إن كان غيره توقف ثبوته لها على ثبوت آخر لها و هلم جرا فيتسلسل.

و قد اضطر هذا الإشكال بعضهم إلى القول بأن القاعدة مخصصة بثبوت الوجود للماهية و بعضهم إلى تبديل الفرعية بالاستلزام فقال الحق أن ثبوت شي‏ء لشي‏ء مستلزم لثبوت المثبت له و لو بهذا الثابت و ثبوت الوجود للماهية مستلزم لثبوت الماهية بنفس هذا الوجود فلا إشكال.

و بعضهم إلى القول بأن الوجود لا تحقق له و لا ثبوت في ذهن و لا في خارج و للموجود معنى بسيط يعبر عنه بالفارسية ب هست و الاشتقاق صوري فلا ثبوت له حتى يتوقف على ثبوت الماهية.

و بعضهم إلى القول بأن الوجود ليس له إلا المعنى المطلق و هو معنى الوجود العام و الحصص و هو المعنى العام مضافا إلى ماهية ماهية بحيث يكون التقييد داخلا و القيد خارجا و أما الفرد و هو مجموع المقيد و التقييد و القيد فليس له ثبوت.

و شي‏ء من هذه الأجوبة على فسادها لا يغني طائلا و الحق في الجواب ما تقدم من أن القاعدة إنما تجري في ثبوت شي‏ء لشي‏ء لا في ثبوت الشي‏ء و بعبارة أخرى مجرى القاعدة هو الهلية المركبة دون الهلية البسيطة كما في ما نحن فيه

1.6. THAT WHICH PARTICULARIZES EXISTENCE

Existence is particularized in three aspects:

(1) as a single fundamental reality in itself, which is self-subsistent [unlike quiddity]; (2) in accordance with the characteristics of its degrees, which are not extraneous to it; (3) in accordance with the different quiddities to which existence pertains and which differentiate it accidentally in accordance with their difference.

The manner in which existence pertains to quiddity and gives it subsistence (thubut) is not the kind peculiar to categories [like accidents in relation to substance], wherein the subsistence of a quality depends on the prior subsistence of its subject. That is because the meaning of existence of quiddity is its subsistence through existence. This follows from the fundamental reality of existence and the derivative (i’tibari) character of quiddity. It is the intellect which, by virtue of its familiarity with quiddities, supposes quiddity to be the subject to which predicates existence. However, the matter is the inverse of this predication in concrete reality.

This explanation serves to answer the well-known objection concerning the predication of existence in relation to quiddity. It is said that in accordance with the Rule of Subordination (qaidat al-far’iyyah), the subsistence (thubut) of some quality (q) of a thing (A) is subordinate to that thing’s subsistence, which makes it necessary that the thing of which the property is posited subsist prior to the quality posited of it. Hence the subsistence of existence in relation to quiddity depends on the prior subsistence of quiddity. For should the subsistence of quiddity be the same as the subsistence of existence, that would imply something being prior to itself; and should it be different, the subsistence of existence in relation to quiddity would depend on another subsistence of quiddity, and so on. This results in an infinite regress.

This objection has forced some philosophers to admit an exception to the rule in the case of subsistence of existence in relation to quiddity. Some of them have been forced to change posteriority into concomitance. They state: ‘The truth is that the subsistence of one thing [quality] in relation to another [subject] is concomitant with the subsistence of the subject, though it be through the subsistence of the former. The subsistence of existence in relation to quiddity is concomitant with the subsistence of quiddity through this existence itself. Hence there remains no room for an objection.”

Some of them have been compelled by this objection into holding that existence has no entity or subsistence, either in the mind or in external reality. ‘Being’ has a simple meaning represented in Farsi by the word hast (‘is’). This derivation [of a substantive from a verb] is merely verbal, and existence has no subsistence at all so as to depend on the subsistence of quiddity.

Some others have been led to hold that ‘existence’ has nothing but a general meaning, signifying existence in general and its parts, which is the same general meaning appended to quiddity, in the sense that the conditioning is internal while the condition is external. The individual, which is the totality of the conditioned, the conditioning, and the condition, has no subsistence.

These attempts to solve the difficulty are invalid, like the earlier one. The correct solution is the one suggested by the foregoing discussion, that the Rule of Subordination applies to the subsistence of a thing in relation to another thing (thubutu shay’in li shay), not to a thing’s subsistence (thubutu al-shay’). In other words, the rule applies to composite propositions [e.g., ‘A has the quality q’], not to simple propositions [e.g., ‘A exists’], as is the matter in the present case.

الفصل السابع في أحكام الوجود السلبية

منها أن الوجود لا غير له و ذلك لأن انحصار الأصالة في حقيقته يستلزم بطلان كل ما يفرض غيرا له أجنبيا عنه بطلانا ذاتيا.

و منها أنه لا ثاني له لأن أصالة حقيقته الواحدة و بطلان كل ما يفرض غيرا له ينفى عنه كل خليط داخل فيه أو منضم إليه فهو صرف في نفسه و صرف الشي‏ء لا يتثنى و لا يتكرر فكل ما فرض له ثانيا عاد أولا و إلا امتاز عنه بشي‏ء غيره داخل فيه أو خارج عنه و المفروض انتفاؤه هذا خلف.

و منها أنه ليس جوهرا و لا عرضا أما أنه ليس جوهرا فلأن الجوهر ماهية إذا وجدت في الخارج وجدت لا في الموضوع و الوجود ليس من سنخ الماهية و أما أنه ليس بعرض فلأن العرض متقوم الوجود بالموضوع و الوجود متقوم بنفس ذاته و كل شي‏ء متقوم به.

و منها أنه ليس جزءا لشي‏ء لأن الجزء الآخر المفروض غيره و الوجود لا غير له.

و ما قيل إن كل ممكن زوج تركيبي من ماهية و وجود فاعتبار عقلي ناظر إلى الملازمة بين الوجود الإمكاني و الماهية لا أنه تركيب من جزءين أصيلين.

و منها أنه لا جزء له لأن الجزء إما جزء عقلي كالجنس و الفصل و إما جزء خارجي كالمادة و الصورة و إما جزء مقداري كأجزاء الخط و السطح و الجسم التعليمي و ليس للوجود شي‏ء من هذه الأجزاء.

أما الجزء العقلي فلأنه لو كان للوجود جنس و فصل فجنسه إما الوجود فيكون فصله المقسم مقوما لأن الفصل بالنسبة إلى الجنس يفيد تحصل ذاته لا أصل ذاته و تحصل الوجود هو ذاته هذا خلف و إما غير الوجود و لا غير للوجود.

و أما الجزء الخارجي و هو المادة و الصورة فلأن المادة و الصورة هما الجنس و الفصل مأخوذين بشرط لا فانتفاء الجنس و الفصل يوجب انتفاءهما.

و أما الجزء المقداري فلأن المقدار من عوارض الجسم و الجسم مركب من المادة و الصورة و إذ لا مادة و لا صورة للوجود فلا جسم له و إذ لا جسم له فلا مقدار له

و مما تقدم يظهر أنه ليس نوعا لأن تحصل النوع بالتشخص الفردي و الوجود متحصل بنفس ذاته‏

1.7. NEGATIVE PROPERTIES OF EXISTENCE

One of the properties of existence is that it has no ‘other.’ Since its reality exhausts all fundamental reality, this necessitates the essential vacuity of anything that may be supposed as being alienated from it or besides it.

Another of these properties is that it has no second, for the oneness of its fundamental reality and the vacuity of anything else that may be supposed, precludes its possessing any ingredient within it or appended to it. It is absolute (sirf), and a thing in its absoluteness does not yield to duplication or repetition. Any second that may be assumed for it would be either identical with the first, or differ from it due to something intrinsic or extrinsic that is other than it, and the supposition (that there is nothing except existence) negates any other.

Another of these properties is that existence is neither substance nor accident. It is not substance, because substance is a quiddity that does not require a subject to subsist in external reality, while existence is not of the order of quiddity. As to its not being an accident, that is because an accident subsists through its subject and existence is self-subsisting and everything else subsists through it.

Another of these properties is that existence is not a part of anything, because the other supposed part will be something other than existence, while existence has no other.

As to the statement that ‘every contingent existent (mumkin) is a duality composed of quiddity and existence’ [which apparently implies that existence is a part of something], that is merely one of the intellect’s constructs (i’tibar ‘aqli) representing the necessary relation between contingent existence and quiddity. It does not mean that it is a compound made up of two parts possessing fundamental reality.

Another of these properties is that existence has no constituents. Constituents may be: (i) conceptual, such as genus and differentia; (ii) external, such as matter and form; or (iii) quantitative, such as length, area, and volume. Existence possesses none of these parts.

As to the absence of conceptual constituents in existence, were there a genus and differentia for existence, the genus would be either existence or something else. If the genus were existence, its differentia, which divides the genus, would constitute it, for the differentia in relation to the genus actualizes the genus [through species]; it does not constitute the essence of the genus itself. Existence, however, actualizes itself. The genus cannot be something other than existence, because existence has no other.

As to external constituents, i.e. matter and form, they are genus and differentia, though like genus and differentia they are not predicable of each other. The negation of genus and differentia in regard to existence necessarily implies the negation of these also.

As to quantitative constituents, magnitude is a property of bodies, which are composed of matter and form. Since existence has neither matter nor form, it follows that it has neither bodiness, nor, as consequence, magnitude.

From what has been said, it become evident that existence has no species either, for a species is actualized by individuation, and existence is actualized by itself.

الفصل الثامن في معنى نفس الأمر

قد ظهر مما تقدم أن لحقيقة الوجود ثبوتا و تحققا بنفسه بل الوجود عين الثبوت و التحقق و أن للماهيات و هي التي تقال في جواب ما هو و توجد تارة بوجود خارجي فتظهر آثارها و تارة بوجود ذهني فلا تترتب عليها الآثار ثبوتا و تحققا بالوجود لا بنفس ذاتها و إن كانا متحدين في الخارج و أن المفاهيم الاعتبارية العقلية و هي التي لم تنتزع من الخارج و إنما اعتبرها العقل بنوع من التعمل لضرورة تضطره إلى ذلك كمفاهيم الوجود و الوحدة و العلية و نحو ذلك أيضا لها نحو ثبوت بثبوت مصاديقها المحكية بها و إن لم تكن هذه المفاهيم مأخوذة في مصاديقها أخذ الماهية في أفرادها و في حدود مصاديقها.

و هذا الثبوت العام الشامل لثبوت الوجود و الماهية و المفاهيم الاعتبارية العقلية هو المسمى بنفس الأمر التي يعتبر صدق القضايا بمطابقتها فيقال إن كذا كذا في نفس الأمر.

توضيح ذلك أن من القضايا ما موضوعها خارجي بحكم خارجي كقولنا الواجب تعالى موجود و قولنا خرج من في البلد و قولنا” الإنسان ضاحك بالقوة “ صدق الحكم فيها بمطابقته للوجود العيني.

و منها ما موضوعها ذهني بحكم ذهني أو خارجي مأخوذ بحكم ذهني كقولنا الكلي إما ذاتي أو عرضي و الإنسان نوع و صدق الحكم فيها بمطابقته للذهن لكون موطن ثبوتها هو الذهن و كلا القسمين صادقان بمطابقتهما لنفس الأمر فالثبوت النفس الأمري أعم مطلقا من كل من الثبوت الذهني و الخارجي.

و قيل إن نفس الأمر عقل مجرد فيه صور المعقولات عامة و التصديقات الصادقة في القضايا الذهنية و الخارجية تطابق ما عنده من الصور المعقولة.

و فيه أنا ننقل الكلام إلى ما عنده من الصور العلمية فهي تصديقات تحتاج في صدقها إلى ثبوت لمضامينها خارج عنها تطابقه.

1.1. THE SELF-EVIDENT CHARACTER OF THE MEANING OF EXISTENCE

The concept of ‘existence’ is a self-evident one and needs no mediating terms. Hence it has no explanatory terms (mu’arrif ) in the form of a definition (hadd ) or description (rasm ), because its meaning is more obvious than that of any explanatory term. Such definitions as “Existence is what subsists in reality,” or “Existence is that which allows of predication” are explications of the word, not true definitions.

Moreover, as will be explained later, existence has neither any genus (jins ), nor differentia (fasl ), nor any proprium (khassah ) in the sense of one of the five universals (al-kulliyyat al-khams ). As all explanatory terms are based on these, existence can have no definition or description.

الفصل الثاني في أن مفهوم الوجود مشترك معنوي

يحمل الوجود على موضوعاته بمعنى واحد اشتراكا معنويا.

و من الدليل عليه أنا نقسم الوجود إلى أقسامه المختلفة كتقسيمه إلى وجود الواجب و وجود الممكن و تقسيم وجود الممكن إلى وجود الجوهر و وجود العرض ثم وجود الجوهر إلى أقسامه و وجود العرض إلى أقسامه و من المعلوم أن التقسيم يتوقف في صحته على وحدة المقسم و وجوده في الأقسام.

و من الدليل عليه أنا ربما أثبتنا وجود شي‏ء ثم ترددنا في خصوصية ذاته كما لو أثبتنا للعالم صانعا ثم ترددنا في كونه واجبا أو ممكنا و في كونه ذا ماهية أو غير ذي ماهية و كما لو أثبتنا للإنسان نفسا ثم شككنا في كونها مجردة أو مادية و جوهرا أو عرضا مع بقاء العلم بوجوده على ما كان فلو لم يكن للوجود معنى واحد بل كان مشتركا لفظيا متعددا معناه بتعدد موضوعاته لتغير معناه بتغير موضوعاته بحسب الاعتقاد بالضرورة.

و من الدليل عليه أن العدم يناقض الوجود و له معنى واحد إذ لا تمايز في العدم فللوجود الذي هو نقيضه معنى واحد و إلا ارتفع النقيضان و هو محال.

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. in relation to the Necessary Being and contingent beings, have done so in order to avoid the conclusion that there is a similarity (sinkhiyyah ) between cause and effect, or between the Necessary Being and contingent existents. However, such a position stands refuted, because it amounts to suspending the intellect’s cognitive faculties. To elaborate, if in the statement, ‘The Necessary Being exists,’ we understand ‘existence’ to mean the same as what it means in a statement asserting the existence of a contingent being, it implies that ‘existence’ is univocal (mushtarak ma’nawi ). If what is understood in the former statement [by ‘existence’] were the opposite of that which is understood in the latter, being the contradictory of the latter, the statement ‘The Necessary Being exists,’ would amount to the negation of Its existence.

Finally, if nothing were understandable from it, that would amount to a suspension of the intellect’s cognitive faculties, which is not however the state in which we find ourselves.

الفصل الثالث في أن الوجود زائد على الماهية عارض لها

بمعنى أن المفهوم من أحدهما غير المفهوم من الآخر فللعقل أن يجرد الماهية و هي ما يقال في جواب ما هو عن الوجود فيعتبرها وحدها فيعقلها ثم يصفها بالوجود و هو معنى العروض فليس الوجود عينا للماهية و لا جزءا لها.

و الدليل عليه أن الوجود يصح سلبه عن الماهية و لو كان عينا أو جزءا لها لم يصح ذلك لاستحالة سلب عين الشي‏ء و جزئه عنه.

و أيضا حمل الوجود على الماهية يحتاج إلى دليل فليس عينا و لا جزءا لها لأن ذات الشي‏ء و ذاتياته بينة الثبوت له لا تحتاج فيه إلى دليل

و أيضا الماهية متساوية النسبة في نفسها إلى الوجود و العدم و لو كان الوجود عينا أو جزءا لها استحالت نسبتها إلى العدم الذي هو نقيضه

1.3. EXISTENCE IS ADDITIONAL TO QUIDDITY

A thing’s existence is additional to its quiddity, in the sense, that each of them [i.e. ‘existence’ and ‘quiddity’] signifies something not understandable from the other. From existence, the intellect first abstracts [or divests] quiddity, which is represented by the answer to the question, ‘What is it?’ Then the intellect considers it in isolation and attributes existence to it. This is what is meant by predication [‘urud , i.e. ascription of existence to quiddity]. Hence existence is neither identical with quiddity nor a part of it.

A proof of it is that one may properly negate existence in relation to quiddity. Had it been identical with quiddity, or a part of it, such a negation would have been invalid, for it is impossible to negate something in regard to a thing which is identical with it or a part of it.

Also, a proof is required if existence is to be predicated of a quiddity; therefore, it is neither identical with quiddity nor a part of it, because a thing’s essence (dhat ) and its essential characteristics [i.e. genus and differentia] are self-evident and do not stand in need of a proof.

Moreover, quiddity is in itself indifferent (mutasawiyat al-nisbah , lit. ‘equally related’) to existence and non-existence. Were existence identical with quiddity or a part of it, it would be impossible to attribute to it non-existence, which is its contradictory.

الفصل الرابع في أصالة الوجود و اعتبارية الماهية

إنا لا نرتاب في أن هناك أمورا واقعية ذات آثار واقعية ليست بوهم الواهم ثم ننتزع من كل من هذه الأمور المشهودة لنا في عين أنه واحد في الخارج مفهومين اثنين كل منهما غير الآخر مفهوما و إن اتحدا مصداقا و هما الوجود و الماهية كالإنسان الذي في الخارج المنتزع عنه أنه إنسان و أنه موجود.

و قد اختلف الحكماء في الأصيل منهما فذهب المشاءون إلى أصالة الوجود و نسب إلى الإشراقيين القول بأصالة الماهية و أما القول بأصالتهما معا فلم يذهب إليه أحد منهم لاستلزام ذلك كون كل شي‏ء شيئين اثنين و هو خلاف الضرورة.

و الحق ما ذهب إليه المشاءون من أصالة الوجود.

و البرهان عليه أن الماهية من حيث هي ليست إلا هي متساوية النسبة إلى الوجود و العدم فلو لم يكن خروجها من حد الاستواء إلى مستوى الوجود بحيث تترتب عليها الآثار بواسطة الوجود كان ذلك منها انقلابا و هو محال بالضرورة فالوجود هو المخرج لها عن حد الاستواء فهو الأصيل.

و ما قيل إن الماهية بنسبة مكتسبة من الجاعل تخرج من حد الاستواء إلى مرحلة الأصالة فتترتب عليها الآثار مندفع بأنها إن تفاوتت حالها بعد الانتساب فما به التفاوت هو الوجود الأصيل و إن سمي نسبة إلى الجاعل و إن لم تتفاوت و مع ذلك حمل عليها أنها موجودة و ترتبت عليها الآثار كان من الانقلاب كما تقدم

برهان آخر الماهيات مثار الكثرة و الاختلاف بالذات فلو لم يكن الوجود أصيلا لم تتحقق وحدة حقيقية و لا اتحاد بين ماهيتين فلم يتحقق الحمل الذي هو الاتحاد في الوجود و الضرورة تقضي بخلافه فالوجود هو الأصيل الموجود بالذات و الماهية موجودة به.

برهان آخر الماهية توجد بوجود خارجي فتترتب عليها آثارها و توجد بعينها بوجود ذهني كما سيأتي فلا يترتب عليها شي‏ء من تلك الآثار فلو لم يكن الوجود هو الأصيل و كانت الأصالة للماهية و هي محفوظة في الوجودين لم يكن فرق بينهما و التالي باطل فالمقدم مثله.

برهان آخر الماهية من حيث هي تستوي نسبتها إلى التقدم و التأخر و الشدة و الضعف و القوة و الفعل لكن الأمور الموجودة في الخارج مختلفة في هذه الأوصاف فبعضها متقدم أو قوي كالعلة و بعضها بخلاف ذلك كالمعلول و بعضها بالقوة و بعضها بالفعل فلو لم يكن الوجود هو الأصيل كان اختلاف هذه الصفات مستندة إليها و هي متساوية النسبة إلى الجميع هذا خلف و هناك حجج أخرى مذكورة في المطولات.

و للقائلين بأصالة الماهية و اعتبارية الوجود حجج مدخولة كقولهم لو كان الوجود أصيلا كان موجودا في الخارج فله وجود و لوجوده وجود فيتسلسل و هو محال.

و أجيب عنه بأن الوجود موجود لكن بنفس ذاته لا بوجود آخر فلا يذهب الأمر إلى غير النهاية

و يظهر مما تقدم ضعف قول آخر في المسألة منسوب إلى المحقق الدواني و هو أصالة الوجود في الواجب تعالى و أصالة الماهية في الممكنات و عليه فإطلاق الموجود على الواجب بمعنى أنه نفس الوجود و على الماهيات بمعنى أنها منتسبة إلى الوجود كاللابن و التامر بمعنى المنتسب إلى اللبن و التمر هذا و أما على المذهب المختار فالوجود موجود بذاته و الماهية موجودة بالعرض.

1.4. THE FUNDAMENTAL REALITY OF EXISTENCE

We have no doubt that there are real things out there in external reality possessing certain real properties (athar), and that they are not illusory. In regard to each of the things that we observe -  which is a single reality in the external world - we form two concepts different from one another, though they pertain to a single thing. These two concepts are ‘existence’ and ‘quiddity.’ For instance, in regard to a person existing in external reality, we posit his/her quiddity as a ‘human being’ and that he/she exists.

The philosophers (hukama) have differed as to which of the two concepts is fundamental (asil). The Peripatetics (al-Mashsha’un) hold existence to be fundamentally real (asalat al-wujud). The belief in the fundamentality of quiddity (asalat al-mahiyyah) has been ascribed to the Emanationists (al-Ishraqiyyun). The view that both of them may be regarded as fundamentally real is one which no one has held, for that would imply that every thing is two things, which is logically inadmissible.

The Peripatetics are right in holding existence to be fundamentally real. A proof of it is that quiddity as such is indifferent to [or stands in equal relation to] existence and non-existence, and were it capable by itself of emerging from this state of indifference [or neutrality] and assuming existence along with its properties (athar), that would amount to a violation of the law of identity (inqilab; lit. ‘mutation’), which is impossible. Hence it is existence that brings quiddity out of its state of indifference and is fundamentally real.

As to that which some have said, that quiddity emerges from its state of indifference to assume reality through the relation that it acquires with the Maker, such an argument stands refuted. Because the difference in the state of quiddity after its relation with the Maker amounts to existence, though it should be called ‘a relation with the Maker.’ And should there occur no difference in its state, and should existence nevertheless be predicated of it, that would amount to a violation of the law of identity, as mentioned.

Another proof is that quiddities are the source of multiplicity and diversity. Had existence not been fundamentally real, there would have been no real unity, nor any union between two quiddities [in one thing]. As a consequence, there would be no predication, which signifies unity in existence [as in a proposition of the type, ‘A is B’], and logical necessity requires the contrary of it. Hence existence is fundamentally real, existing by itself, and quiddity exists through it.

Another proof is that when quiddity exists externally, it possesses the properties (athar) expected of it. But when quiddity exists through mental existence (wujud dhihni) (which will be dealt with later on), it does not possess any of these properties. So if existence were not real, and were quiddity  -  which is there in both modes of being - real, there would be no difference between these two modes. Since this consequent premise is invalid, the antecedent must also be such.

Another proof is that quiddity as such is indifferent in its relation to priority (taqaddum) and posteriority (ta’khkhur), strength (shiddah) and weakness (da’f), actuality (fi’l) and potentiality (quwwah). However, things existing in external reality differ in regard to these characteristics. Some of

them are prior and strong, such as the cause (‘illah), and some are the opposite of that, such as the effect (ma’lul). Some of them have actuality and some of them possess potentiality. Were existence not fundamentally real, the difference in respect to these characteristics would be attributable to quiddity, which is indifferent in relation to all of them. This involves a contradiction. There are other proofs besides the ones given here and they are mentioned in detailed works.

Those who believe in the fundamental reality of quiddity arid consider existence to be derivative (i’tibari), have offered certain infirm arguments, like the one which says, ‘If existence were fundamentally real, it would exist externally; from which it follows that it has an existence, and that existence again has another existence, and so on ad infinitum. This involves an infinite regress, which is inadmissible.’

The answer to such an argument is that existence does indeed exist; but it exists by itself, not by another existence. So the matter does not lead to an infinite regress.

In the light of what has been said, the infirmity of another view, ascribed to Dawwani, also becomes evident. That view ascribes fundamental reality to existence with respect to the Necessary Being, and to quiddity with respect to contingent beings. According to it, existence is attributable to the Necessary Being in the sense that It is existent by Itself and to quiddities in the sense that they have only a relation with being, such as the relation between the ‘milkman’ (labin) and ‘milk’ (laban) and the ‘date seller’ (tamir) and ‘dates’ (tamr). However, in accordance with the doctrine endorsed by us, existence exists by itself (bi dhatih) and quiddity exists accidentally (bi al-‘arad).

الفصل الخامس في أن الوجود حقيقة واحدة مشككة

اختلف القائلون بأصالة الوجود فذهب بعضهم إلى أن الوجود حقيقة واحدة مشككة و هو المنسوب إلى الفهلويين من حكماء الفرس فالوجود عندهم لكونه ظاهرا بذاته مظهرا لغيره من الماهيات كالنور الحسي الذي هو ظاهر بذاته مظهر لغيره من الأجسام الكثيفة للأبصار.

فكما أن النور الحسي نوع واحد حقيقته أنه ظاهر بذاته مظهر لغيره و هذا المعنى متحقق في جميع مراتب الأشعة و الأظلة على كثرتها و اختلافها فالنور الشديد شديد في نوريته التي يشارك فيها النور الضعيف و النور الضعيف ضعيف في نوريته التي يشارك فيها النور الشديد فليست شدة الشديد منه جزءا مقوما للنورية حتى يخرج الضعيف منه و لا عرضا خارجا عن الحقيقة و ليس ضعف الضعيف قادحا في نوريته و لا أنه مركب من النور و الظلمة لكونها أمرا عدميا بل شدة الشديد في أصل النورية و كذا ضعف الضعيف فللنور عرض عريض باعتبار مراتبه المختلفة بالشدة و الضعف و لكل مرتبة عرض عريض باعتبار القوابل المختلفة من الأجسام الكثيفة.

كذلك الوجود حقيقة واحدة ذات مراتب مختلفة متمايزة بالشدة و الضعف و التقدم و التأخر و غير ذلك فيرجع ما به الامتياز فيها إلى ما به الاشتراك و ما به الاختلاف إلى ما به الاتحاد فليست خصوصية شي‏ء من المراتب جزءا مقوما للوجود لبساطته كما سيجي‏ء و لا أمرا خارجا عنه لأن أصالة الوجود تبطل ما هو غيره الخارج عنه بل الخصوصية في كل مرتبة مقومة لنفس المرتبة بمعنى ما ليس بخارج منها.

و لها كثرة طولية باعتبار المراتب المختلفة الآخذة من أضعف المراتب و هي التي لا فعلية لها إلا عدم الفعلية و هي المادة الأولى الواقعة في أفق العدم ثم تتصاعد المراتب إلى أن تنتهي إلى المرتبة الواجبة لذاتها و هي التي لا حد لها إلا عدم الحد و لها كثرة عرضية باعتبار تخصصها بالماهيات المختلفة التي هي مثار الكثرة.

و ذهب قوم من المشاءين إلى كون الوجود حقائق متباينة بتمام ذواتها أما كونه حقائق متباينة فلاختلاف آثارها و أما كونها متباينة بتمام الذوات فلبساطتها و على هذا يكون مفهوم الوجود المحمول عليها عرضيا خارجا عنها لازما لها.

و الحق أنه حقيقة واحدة مشككة أما كونها حقيقة واحدة فلأنه لو لم تكن كذلك لكانت حقائق مختلفة متباينة بتمام الذوات و لازمه كون مفهوم الوجود و هو مفهوم واحد كما تقدم منتزعا من مصاديق متباينة بما هي متباينة و هو محال بيان الاستحالة أن المفهوم و المصداق واحد ذاتا و إنما الفارق كون الوجود ذهنيا أو خارجيا فلو انتزع الواحد بما هو واحد من الكثير بما هو كثير كان الواحد بما هو واحد كثيرا بما هو كثير و هو محال

و أيضا لو انتزع المفهوم الواحد بما هو واحد من المصاديق الكثيرة بما هي كثيرة فإما أن تعتبر في صدقه خصوصية هذا المصداق لم يصدق على ذلك المصداق و إن اعتبر فيه خصوصية ذاك لم يصدق على هذا و إن اعتبر فيه الخصوصيتان معا لم يصدق على شي‏ء منهما و إن لم يعتبر شي‏ء من الخصوصيتين بل انتزع من القدر المشترك بينهما لم يكن منتزعا من الكثير بما هو كثير بل بما هو واحد كالكلي المنتزع من الجهة المشتركة بين الأفراد الصادق على الجميع هذا خلف.

و أما أن حقيقته مشككة فلما يظهر من الكمالات الحقيقية المختلفة التي هي صفات متفاضلة غير خارجة عن الحقيقة الواحدة كالشدة و الضعف و التقدم و التأخر و القوة و الفعل و غير ذلك فهي حقيقة واحدة متكثرة في ذاتها يرجع فيها كل ما به الامتياز إلى ما به الاشتراك و بالعكس و هذا هو التشكيك.

1.5. EXISTENCE IS ONE GRADATIONAL REALITY

The believers in the fundamental reality of existence disagree amongst themselves. Some of them regard existence as a single gradational reality (haqiqah mushakkakah wahidah). This view is ascribed to the Fahlaviyyun, philosophers of [ancient] Iran. Existence, according to them, is self-manifesting and makes other things - i.e. quiddities - manifest. It may be likened to sensible light, which is self-manifesting and makes other things, such as opaque bodies, manifest to vision.

Sensible light is a single species. Its reality is that it is self-manifesting and manifests things other than itself. This feature applies to all the different grades of light and shade with their multiplicity and diversity. Hence a strong light shares its luminous nature with a weak light, and a weak light shares its luminous nature with a strong one. The strength of a strong light is neither the constituting differentia (juz muqawwim) of its luminous nature, so as to negate the luminous character of weak light, nor is it an accident extraneous to its reality. The weakness of a weak light neither negates its luminous nature, nor is it a compound of light and darkness, for darkness is non-existence of light. The intensity of a strong light inheres in its luminous nature, and so does the weakness of a weak light. Light possesses a wide range in accordance with its various degrees of intensity and weakness, and there is a wide range associated with each of its degrees depending on the varying receptivity of opaque bodies [as in reflection and refraction].

Similarly, existence is one reality with various degrees differentiated by intensity and weakness, priority and posteriority, etc. That which differentiates these degrees of existence is exactly that which is common to them, and that which makes them different is exactly that which makes them one. Hence the particularity of any of these degrees is not a constituting differentia of existence, by virtue of the simplicity (basatah) of existence  - as will be explained later on - nor is it anything extraneous to it. This is because the fundamental reality of existence precludes that there should be anything other than it or external to it. Rather, the particularity of every degree is what constitutes that degree itself and is not something other than it.

The multiplicity in existence pertains to its various vertical (tuli) degrees, beginning from the weakest of degrees  - represented by prime matter, which exists on the verge of non-existence -  where it has no actuality except the absence of actuality. From there it rises in degrees to the level of the Necessary Being, which has no limit except the absence of limit. Also, existence has a horizontal (‘aradi) multiplicity particularized by the various quiddities, quiddity being the source of multiplicity.

A group of Peripatetics have held the view that existence consists of entities essentially disparate  - disparate in their entirety -  from each other (haqa’iq mutabayinah bi tamami dhawatiha). They are disparate because their properties are disparate. The disparity is essential and complete, by virtue of the simplicity of their essences. On the basis of this position, the predication of existence in regard to these entities becomes, of necessity, something accidental and extrinsic to them (for, were it intrinsic to them, it would be a constituent, and this contradicts simplicity).

The truth is that existence is one graded reality. Were it not one reality, entities would have been disparate from one another with the totality of their essences (dhawat). That would entail that the concept of existence, which is a single concept, as said, has been abstracted from disparate things qua disparate things [having no unifying aspect]. This is impossible. To explain, there is an essential unity between a concept and that to which it refers. The factor of disparity lies in existence being mental or external. Were something which is one, qua one, capable of being abstracted from that which is many, qua many, one qua one would be the same as many qua many, which is impossible.

Also, suppose that a single concept were abstracted from a multiplicity of referents qua disparate things. If the concept represented a certain characteristic of one referent, it would not be predicable of a second referent. If the concept represented some characteristic of the second referent, it would not correspond to the first referent. If the characteristics of both the referents were represented in it, it would not correspond to either of the referents; and should none of these two characteristics be taken into consideration and the concept were to represent that which is common to the two referents, such an abstraction could not have been possible from different things qua different things, but from their unifying aspect, such as the abstraction of universals from the common aspect shared by all individuals covered by that universal. This, however, contradicts the assumption.

As to existence being a gradational reality, since it manifests various real perfections that make up the distinctive attributes that are not extraneous” to the single reality of existence, such as intensity and weakness, priority and posteriority, potentiality and actuality, etc., existence is a single reality multiple in its essence, wherein all that makes existents differ refers to what is common to them, and vice versa. This is what is called gradation (tashkik).

الفصل السادس في ما يتخصص به الوجود

تخصص الوجود بوجوه ثلاثة :

أحدها تخصص حقيقته الواحدة الأصلية بنفس ذاتها القائمة بذاتها

و ثانيها تخصصها بخصوصيات مراتبها غير الخارجة عن المراتب

و ثالثها تخصص الوجود بإضافته إلى الماهيات المختلفة الذوات و عروضه لها فيختلف باختلافها بالعرض.

و عروض الوجود للماهية و ثبوته لها ليس من قبيل العروض المقولي الذي يتوقف فيه ثبوت العارض على ثبوت المعروض قبله فإن حقيقة ثبوت الوجود للماهية هي ثبوت الماهية به لأن ذلك هو مقتضى أصالته و اعتباريتها و إنما العقل لمكان أنسه بالماهيات يفترض الماهية موضوعه و يحمل الوجود عليها و هو في الحقيقة من عكس الحمل.

و بذلك يندفع الإشكال المعروف في حمل الوجود على الماهية من أن قاعدة الفرعية أعني أن ثبوت شي‏ء لشي‏ء فرع ثبوت المثبت له توجب ثبوتا للمثبت له قبل ثبوت الثابت فثبوت الوجود للماهية يتوقف على ثبوت الماهية قبله فإن كان ثبوتها عين ثبوته لها لزم تقدم الشي‏ء على نفسه و إن كان غيره توقف ثبوته لها على ثبوت آخر لها و هلم جرا فيتسلسل.

و قد اضطر هذا الإشكال بعضهم إلى القول بأن القاعدة مخصصة بثبوت الوجود للماهية و بعضهم إلى تبديل الفرعية بالاستلزام فقال الحق أن ثبوت شي‏ء لشي‏ء مستلزم لثبوت المثبت له و لو بهذا الثابت و ثبوت الوجود للماهية مستلزم لثبوت الماهية بنفس هذا الوجود فلا إشكال.

و بعضهم إلى القول بأن الوجود لا تحقق له و لا ثبوت في ذهن و لا في خارج و للموجود معنى بسيط يعبر عنه بالفارسية ب هست و الاشتقاق صوري فلا ثبوت له حتى يتوقف على ثبوت الماهية.

و بعضهم إلى القول بأن الوجود ليس له إلا المعنى المطلق و هو معنى الوجود العام و الحصص و هو المعنى العام مضافا إلى ماهية ماهية بحيث يكون التقييد داخلا و القيد خارجا و أما الفرد و هو مجموع المقيد و التقييد و القيد فليس له ثبوت.

و شي‏ء من هذه الأجوبة على فسادها لا يغني طائلا و الحق في الجواب ما تقدم من أن القاعدة إنما تجري في ثبوت شي‏ء لشي‏ء لا في ثبوت الشي‏ء و بعبارة أخرى مجرى القاعدة هو الهلية المركبة دون الهلية البسيطة كما في ما نحن فيه

1.6. THAT WHICH PARTICULARIZES EXISTENCE

Existence is particularized in three aspects:

(1) as a single fundamental reality in itself, which is self-subsistent [unlike quiddity]; (2) in accordance with the characteristics of its degrees, which are not extraneous to it; (3) in accordance with the different quiddities to which existence pertains and which differentiate it accidentally in accordance with their difference.

The manner in which existence pertains to quiddity and gives it subsistence (thubut) is not the kind peculiar to categories [like accidents in relation to substance], wherein the subsistence of a quality depends on the prior subsistence of its subject. That is because the meaning of existence of quiddity is its subsistence through existence. This follows from the fundamental reality of existence and the derivative (i’tibari) character of quiddity. It is the intellect which, by virtue of its familiarity with quiddities, supposes quiddity to be the subject to which predicates existence. However, the matter is the inverse of this predication in concrete reality.

This explanation serves to answer the well-known objection concerning the predication of existence in relation to quiddity. It is said that in accordance with the Rule of Subordination (qaidat al-far’iyyah), the subsistence (thubut) of some quality (q) of a thing (A) is subordinate to that thing’s subsistence, which makes it necessary that the thing of which the property is posited subsist prior to the quality posited of it. Hence the subsistence of existence in relation to quiddity depends on the prior subsistence of quiddity. For should the subsistence of quiddity be the same as the subsistence of existence, that would imply something being prior to itself; and should it be different, the subsistence of existence in relation to quiddity would depend on another subsistence of quiddity, and so on. This results in an infinite regress.

This objection has forced some philosophers to admit an exception to the rule in the case of subsistence of existence in relation to quiddity. Some of them have been forced to change posteriority into concomitance. They state: ‘The truth is that the subsistence of one thing [quality] in relation to another [subject] is concomitant with the subsistence of the subject, though it be through the subsistence of the former. The subsistence of existence in relation to quiddity is concomitant with the subsistence of quiddity through this existence itself. Hence there remains no room for an objection.”

Some of them have been compelled by this objection into holding that existence has no entity or subsistence, either in the mind or in external reality. ‘Being’ has a simple meaning represented in Farsi by the word hast (‘is’). This derivation [of a substantive from a verb] is merely verbal, and existence has no subsistence at all so as to depend on the subsistence of quiddity.

Some others have been led to hold that ‘existence’ has nothing but a general meaning, signifying existence in general and its parts, which is the same general meaning appended to quiddity, in the sense that the conditioning is internal while the condition is external. The individual, which is the totality of the conditioned, the conditioning, and the condition, has no subsistence.

These attempts to solve the difficulty are invalid, like the earlier one. The correct solution is the one suggested by the foregoing discussion, that the Rule of Subordination applies to the subsistence of a thing in relation to another thing (thubutu shay’in li shay), not to a thing’s subsistence (thubutu al-shay’). In other words, the rule applies to composite propositions [e.g., ‘A has the quality q’], not to simple propositions [e.g., ‘A exists’], as is the matter in the present case.

الفصل السابع في أحكام الوجود السلبية

منها أن الوجود لا غير له و ذلك لأن انحصار الأصالة في حقيقته يستلزم بطلان كل ما يفرض غيرا له أجنبيا عنه بطلانا ذاتيا.

و منها أنه لا ثاني له لأن أصالة حقيقته الواحدة و بطلان كل ما يفرض غيرا له ينفى عنه كل خليط داخل فيه أو منضم إليه فهو صرف في نفسه و صرف الشي‏ء لا يتثنى و لا يتكرر فكل ما فرض له ثانيا عاد أولا و إلا امتاز عنه بشي‏ء غيره داخل فيه أو خارج عنه و المفروض انتفاؤه هذا خلف.

و منها أنه ليس جوهرا و لا عرضا أما أنه ليس جوهرا فلأن الجوهر ماهية إذا وجدت في الخارج وجدت لا في الموضوع و الوجود ليس من سنخ الماهية و أما أنه ليس بعرض فلأن العرض متقوم الوجود بالموضوع و الوجود متقوم بنفس ذاته و كل شي‏ء متقوم به.

و منها أنه ليس جزءا لشي‏ء لأن الجزء الآخر المفروض غيره و الوجود لا غير له.

و ما قيل إن كل ممكن زوج تركيبي من ماهية و وجود فاعتبار عقلي ناظر إلى الملازمة بين الوجود الإمكاني و الماهية لا أنه تركيب من جزءين أصيلين.

و منها أنه لا جزء له لأن الجزء إما جزء عقلي كالجنس و الفصل و إما جزء خارجي كالمادة و الصورة و إما جزء مقداري كأجزاء الخط و السطح و الجسم التعليمي و ليس للوجود شي‏ء من هذه الأجزاء.

أما الجزء العقلي فلأنه لو كان للوجود جنس و فصل فجنسه إما الوجود فيكون فصله المقسم مقوما لأن الفصل بالنسبة إلى الجنس يفيد تحصل ذاته لا أصل ذاته و تحصل الوجود هو ذاته هذا خلف و إما غير الوجود و لا غير للوجود.

و أما الجزء الخارجي و هو المادة و الصورة فلأن المادة و الصورة هما الجنس و الفصل مأخوذين بشرط لا فانتفاء الجنس و الفصل يوجب انتفاءهما.

و أما الجزء المقداري فلأن المقدار من عوارض الجسم و الجسم مركب من المادة و الصورة و إذ لا مادة و لا صورة للوجود فلا جسم له و إذ لا جسم له فلا مقدار له

و مما تقدم يظهر أنه ليس نوعا لأن تحصل النوع بالتشخص الفردي و الوجود متحصل بنفس ذاته‏

1.7. NEGATIVE PROPERTIES OF EXISTENCE

One of the properties of existence is that it has no ‘other.’ Since its reality exhausts all fundamental reality, this necessitates the essential vacuity of anything that may be supposed as being alienated from it or besides it.

Another of these properties is that it has no second, for the oneness of its fundamental reality and the vacuity of anything else that may be supposed, precludes its possessing any ingredient within it or appended to it. It is absolute (sirf), and a thing in its absoluteness does not yield to duplication or repetition. Any second that may be assumed for it would be either identical with the first, or differ from it due to something intrinsic or extrinsic that is other than it, and the supposition (that there is nothing except existence) negates any other.

Another of these properties is that existence is neither substance nor accident. It is not substance, because substance is a quiddity that does not require a subject to subsist in external reality, while existence is not of the order of quiddity. As to its not being an accident, that is because an accident subsists through its subject and existence is self-subsisting and everything else subsists through it.

Another of these properties is that existence is not a part of anything, because the other supposed part will be something other than existence, while existence has no other.

As to the statement that ‘every contingent existent (mumkin) is a duality composed of quiddity and existence’ [which apparently implies that existence is a part of something], that is merely one of the intellect’s constructs (i’tibar ‘aqli) representing the necessary relation between contingent existence and quiddity. It does not mean that it is a compound made up of two parts possessing fundamental reality.

Another of these properties is that existence has no constituents. Constituents may be: (i) conceptual, such as genus and differentia; (ii) external, such as matter and form; or (iii) quantitative, such as length, area, and volume. Existence possesses none of these parts.

As to the absence of conceptual constituents in existence, were there a genus and differentia for existence, the genus would be either existence or something else. If the genus were existence, its differentia, which divides the genus, would constitute it, for the differentia in relation to the genus actualizes the genus [through species]; it does not constitute the essence of the genus itself. Existence, however, actualizes itself. The genus cannot be something other than existence, because existence has no other.

As to external constituents, i.e. matter and form, they are genus and differentia, though like genus and differentia they are not predicable of each other. The negation of genus and differentia in regard to existence necessarily implies the negation of these also.

As to quantitative constituents, magnitude is a property of bodies, which are composed of matter and form. Since existence has neither matter nor form, it follows that it has neither bodiness, nor, as consequence, magnitude.

From what has been said, it become evident that existence has no species either, for a species is actualized by individuation, and existence is actualized by itself.

الفصل الثامن في معنى نفس الأمر

قد ظهر مما تقدم أن لحقيقة الوجود ثبوتا و تحققا بنفسه بل الوجود عين الثبوت و التحقق و أن للماهيات و هي التي تقال في جواب ما هو و توجد تارة بوجود خارجي فتظهر آثارها و تارة بوجود ذهني فلا تترتب عليها الآثار ثبوتا و تحققا بالوجود لا بنفس ذاتها و إن كانا متحدين في الخارج و أن المفاهيم الاعتبارية العقلية و هي التي لم تنتزع من الخارج و إنما اعتبرها العقل بنوع من التعمل لضرورة تضطره إلى ذلك كمفاهيم الوجود و الوحدة و العلية و نحو ذلك أيضا لها نحو ثبوت بثبوت مصاديقها المحكية بها و إن لم تكن هذه المفاهيم مأخوذة في مصاديقها أخذ الماهية في أفرادها و في حدود مصاديقها.

و هذا الثبوت العام الشامل لثبوت الوجود و الماهية و المفاهيم الاعتبارية العقلية هو المسمى بنفس الأمر التي يعتبر صدق القضايا بمطابقتها فيقال إن كذا كذا في نفس الأمر.

توضيح ذلك أن من القضايا ما موضوعها خارجي بحكم خارجي كقولنا الواجب تعالى موجود و قولنا خرج من في البلد و قولنا” الإنسان ضاحك بالقوة “ صدق الحكم فيها بمطابقته للوجود العيني.

و منها ما موضوعها ذهني بحكم ذهني أو خارجي مأخوذ بحكم ذهني كقولنا الكلي إما ذاتي أو عرضي و الإنسان نوع و صدق الحكم فيها بمطابقته للذهن لكون موطن ثبوتها هو الذهن و كلا القسمين صادقان بمطابقتهما لنفس الأمر فالثبوت النفس الأمري أعم مطلقا من كل من الثبوت الذهني و الخارجي.

و قيل إن نفس الأمر عقل مجرد فيه صور المعقولات عامة و التصديقات الصادقة في القضايا الذهنية و الخارجية تطابق ما عنده من الصور المعقولة.

و فيه أنا ننقل الكلام إلى ما عنده من الصور العلمية فهي تصديقات تحتاج في صدقها إلى ثبوت لمضامينها خارج عنها تطابقه.