Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

The Basics of Islamic Jurisprudence

A description of the general and specific topics that are covered in Islamic jurisprudence such as terminologies, sects, sources and subjects.

Author(s): Hassan Al-Rida'i

Translator(s): Hamid Hussein Waqar

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Note 3

The Literal and Figurative Definition of Jurispudence 4

The Meaning of Fiqh 4

Shari'ah and Fiqh 5

Notes 5

The Importance of Jurisprudence 6

The Special Qualities of Jurisprudence 6

Notes 6

Jurisprudence Jargon 7

Duty (Taklif) 7

Ijtihad 7

The Necessity of Ijtihad 7

Mujtahid 7

Taqlid 8

Precaution 8

Notes 9

The Jurisprudential Sects of Islam 10

How Jurisprudence sects were formed and when 10

The Ahlul-Bayt (a) Sect 11

The Hanafi Sect 12

The Maliki Sect 13

The Shafi'i Sect 13

The Hanbali Sect 14

Notes 14

The History of the Ahlul-Bayt (a) Jurisprudential 15

The Three Stages of the Ahlul-Bayt (a) jurisprudence Sect 15

The First Stage 15

The Second Stage 16

The Third Stage 17

Sources of Religious Verdicts 17

1. The Book 17

The Authority of the Book 17

Jurisprudential Verses in Quran 18

2. Traditions (Sunnah) 18

The Authority of Traditions 18

3. Consensus 18

4. Intellect 19

The Authority of Intellect 19

Notes 20

Subjects of Jurisprudence 21

Miscellaneous Rulings 29

Notes 33

Introduction

    وَمَا كَانَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لِيَنفِرُواْ كَآفَّةً فَلَوْلاَ نَفَرَ مِن كُلِّ فِرْقَةٍ مِّنْهُمْ طَآئِفَةٌ لِّيَتَفَقَّهُواْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلِيُنذِرُواْ قَوْمَهُمْ إِذَا رَجَعُواْ إِلَيْهِمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَحْذَرُونَ

Nor should the Believers all go forth together; if a contingent from every expedition remained behind, they could devote themselves to studies in religion, and admonish the people when they return to them, that thus they (may learn) to guard themselves (against evil). 1

Man lives in this world and interacts with all that is in it. There are various relationships between man and the different beings of this world and there are relationships between man and Allah, the most high.

Every relationship is different. A relationship can be between man and Allah, a person and his family, a person and society, a person and government or between one family and another, one society and another or one government and another. People want to act according to their knowledge or according to revelation regarding these relationships in order that they can be prosperous and successful.

The divine commands that create the perfect path for man to walk onto must be inclusive of all different aspects and dimensions of life.

The Islamic legal system organizes people’s lives in all dimensions, individual or social. This system is called 'al-ahkām al-shar‛īyyah'. Islamic jurisprudence explains this system and is one if the deepest and widest Islamic science.

Islamic jurisprudence is one of the sciences that glorify the Islamic civilization.

This jurisprudential system started with the proclamation to prophethood. Its principles were perfected during the life of the prophet.

We will try, in this humble effort, to describe the important general and specific topics that are covered under jurisprudence. The style of this book is in the form of a book to be taught in schools and it is a prelude to the field of comparative jurisprudence.

I ask Allah, the most high, to make this effort fruitful and to grace me by accepting it and to correct our intentions and actions. Definitely, he is the best helper.

Also, I give special thanks to professor, Shaykh Mahmūd al-Sayf and professor, Dr. Ya‛qūb ‛Alī Barjī for their remarks and guidance.

Hassan al-Ridā'ī

1426 Hijrī - Qum al-Muqadasah

Note

1. 9:122

The Literal and Figurative Definition of Jurispudence

The Arabic term for jurisprudence (fiqh) literally means: knowledge about something and understanding it; being clever.1

Fiqh's literal definition does not only mean understanding a word, instead it is a deep knowledge about it. Fiqh has been used in the Qurān in this meaning:

    لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لاَّ يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا

They have hearts wherewith they understand not. 2

Figuratively, fiqh means: knowledge about Islamic legal rulings from their sources. So, fiqh's figurative definition is taken from its literal one in the sense that deriving religious rulings from their sources necessitates the mujtahid3 to have a deep understanding in the different discussions of jurisprudence. He must look deep down into a matter and not suffice himself with just the apparent meaning. A person who only knows the appearance of a matter is not a faqīh.4

The subject of thinking deeply (tafaquh) about religion has been repeatedly mentioned in the Qurān and traditions transmitted from the prophet (s) and the Imāms (a). What is taken from them, on a whole, is that Islam wants man to deeply understand religion. Of course, this understanding covers such subjects as Islamic theology, Islamic ideology, ethics, Islamic upbringing, the Islamic social system, worship, religious rulings and manners that one must have in his individual and social life. The term 'fiqh' has become popular amongst Muslims since the second century after the Hijra A.H. to mean Islamic jurisprudence or the art of deriving religious rulings from their sources. It has obtained the following meaning: a precise and deep understanding and ability to derive religious rulings from their sources.5

The Meaning of Fiqh

Nowadays, the term fiqh is generalized to mean Islamic sciences or Islamic rulings in the broad sense. The broad meaning of Islamic rulings is broken up into three fundamental categories:

1. Theology; what is obligatory for a mukallaf to believe about Allah, his angels, books, messengers and the Day of Judgment.

2. Ethics; the positive traits that a mukallaf must obtain and the negative traits that he must stay away from.

3. Actions; the actions that a mukallaf must perform.

This is proved by the tradition from the prophet (s) who said: “Whoever wants Allah to treat him favorably must have a deep understanding (yafqahu ) in religion.”6

Here, the word fiqh is used in its general sense, synonymous of Islam.

When the different sciences are categorized the term fiqh is used to mean the Islamic rulings regarding one's actions.

Fiqh, in its specific meaning and what is discussed in books of fiqh, includes everything that has to do with all aspects of man's life. Everything that is studied today including foundational laws, city management, family relations, individual actions, management, politics, etc is found in the different sections of fiqh.7

Shari'ah and Fiqh

Sharī‛ah encompasses what was decreed in the time of prophethood found in the Qurān and prophetic traditions.

Fiqh is what has been gained from the efforts of scholars after the prophet's (s) demise.8

Notes

1. Ibn Manzūr, Lisān al-‛Arab

2. 7:179

3. To be discussed later.

4. Tafsīr al-Manār, volume 9, page 420

5. Shahīd Muttaharī, Madkhal Ila al-‛Ulūm al-Islamīyyah, page 3

6. Muslim, Sahīh, volume 3, page 95 (Nayshāpūrī print)

7. Shahīd Muttaharī, Madkhal Ila al-‛Ulūm al-Islamīyyah, page 45

8. Ayatollah Ja‛far Subhānī, Tārīkh al-Fiqh al-Islamī wa Adwārihi, page 6

The Importance of Jurisprudence

Allah, the creator of mankind and the world with all its precision and secrets, emphasizes in the Holy Scriptures that man needs order in his worldly life and needs to find the path that leads him to his purpose, which is the eternal blessings of the next life.

Man's divine disposition (fitrah ) necessitates him to follow religion and religious laws. The reason for this is that man, as shown in his nature and throughout history, is unable to understand what is good and what is bad for him in every situation.

Jurisprudence, which discusses the divine code, teaches us religious laws which give order to our worldly life, which give us benefit, which take us away from corruption and show us the path that leads man to his purpose.

The Special Qualities of Jurisprudence

• Inclusiveness; it includes everything needed to manage and give order to man's life in every aspect and dimension. Jurisprudence gives order to man's life in every different situation, for example: worship, social relations, business deals, personal affairs such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adequate support (nafaqah), family rights, legal matters, government, war, enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong, charity and punishments.

• Easiness; there is no divine law that puts a mukallaf in extreme difficulty.1

• Congruence with man's nature; a law that is against one's divine disposition cannot be found. The reason for this is that the one who makes the divine laws is the same one who created man and who knows the secrets of his soul. For this reason it is possible for Islamic jurisprudence to be in congruence with man's divine disposition.2

• Balance; There is no excessiveness in jurisprudence.3

Islamic jurisprudence is what connects this world to the next.

Notes

1. Refer to 22:78

2. Refer to 30:30

3. Refer to 2:143

Jurisprudence Jargon

Duty (Taklif)

The Arabic term taklīf is derived from the term kulfah which means difficulty. It is used to mean the forcing of an action. For example the sentence; Zayd forces (kallafa) ‛Amr to do an action; he forces him.

Divine laws are called taklīf because they are sent from the Master, glory be to him, and it is necessary for the mukallaf to obey them.

So, taklīf means a forced action given to an adult by the Master, glory be to him. These actions encompass different aspects of man's life, for example his personal life, his worship, his family life and his social life. These laws give order to his life. Examples of these laws are: prayer being obligatory and adultery being forbidden.1

Ijtihad

From the beginning of Islam until its middle ages there was another word for fiqh, it was ijtihād.

Ijtihād is derived from the term juhd which means effort and struggle. The jurist is called a mujtahid because of his efforts and struggle in making religious rulings.

The word istinbāt has a similar meaning. It is derived from the word nabat (al-mā') which literally means taking water out of the ground. A jurist performs a similar action when he struggles to take the religious ruling from its source.2

The term ijtihād is used by the religious scholars to mean obtaining a proof for a religious ruling.3

The Necessity of Ijtihad

Islamic rulings are not mentioned for every situation. That would be impossible, because there are countless situations that happen all the time. Instead it gives general principles and rules.

Therefore, when a jurist must make a ruling for a certain situation he must look into the official sources and give his ruling. Here is where fiqh is synonymous with a deep, precise and inclusive understanding.4

Mujtahid

Definition: a mujtahid is one who has reached the level of ijtihād in understanding religious laws. This means that he has the ability to deduct religious rulings from the Qurān and traditions.

This mujtahid is able to deduct religious laws in all the subjects that the mukallaf needs or only certain subjects because of their ease. In the first case he is called a pure mujtahid and in the second a minor mujtahid.

The sciences that a mujtahid needs to know in order to be able to deduct religious rulings are:

1. Arabic grammar; syntax, morphology, vocabulary and eloquence. The reason for this is that the Qurān and traditions are in Arabic and it is impossible to understand the Qurān or the traditions without knowing Arabic.

2. Tafsīr; the mujtahid will have to refer to the Qurān so he must have a general knowledge of tafsīr.

3. Logic; because every deductive skill needs logic. Logic teaches one how to define something and how to deduce something.5

4. The science of traditions: a mujtahid must know about traditions and their categories.

5. The science of rijāl: This is the science of knowing the individual in the chains of narrations; knowing if they are trustworthy or not. The reason for this is that one cannot accept everything that is narrated unless it is narrated by trustworthy people.

6. The principles of jurisprudence: This is one of the most important sciences that the mujtahid must know because they are the rules that are applied in all of the different sections of jurisprudence.

Taqlid

Taqlīd means acting according to the verdict of a mujtahid. Taqlīd shifts the responsibility of finding the religious ruling from the person performing taqlīd to the mujtahid.

Taqlīd is one of the ways of finding a religious ruling, like ijtihād. Except that ijtihād is a direct way and taqlīd is an indirect way, because one reaches the religious ruling from the ijtihād of another.

The proof for taqlīd being permissible or obligatory is the actions of sane people. Sane people find it necessary for an ignorant person to refer to a scholar. The referral of the ignorant to the scholar is something seen in every society that man has been in. It is even seen today. An example of it is when a non-specialist refers to a specialist.6

One is dependent on taqlīd in finding out religious rulings except in the cases where one knows a religious rule. One can know a religious rule by having certainty about it which is possible without struggling and without study. Examples of these are some of the obligatory actions, many of the recommended actions and most of the permissible actions which are known by most of the people who live in religious areas. Or, one can know the religious rule because of it being self-evident like the obligation of prayer or the forbiddance of drinking wine.

Precaution

Precaution ihtiyāt means: the mukallaf performing everything that he suspects to be obligatory but does not suspect it to be forbidden or refraining from performing anything that he suspects to be forbidden but does not suspect it to be obligatory. The mukallaf must know the different instances of precaution to be able to do this. He must know every place where it is suspected to be obligatory and not suspected to be forbidden or it is suspected to be forbidden and not suspected to be obligatory. This knowledge does not come without looking at verdicts from different mujtahids.

So, precaution is another tool of finding the religious ruling. It is different than the previous two, ijtihād and taqlīd. The mujtahid reaches the religious ruling from his efforts while the person who performs taqlīd obtains the exact rule from the mujtahid. But, the person who performs precaution only gets a general understanding of the rule. The reason for this is that the religious ruling for him is something dangling between obligation, recommendation or permission.7

Precaution is a way of becoming certain that one has performed the real religious ruling. Precaution is divided into two categories:

1. Obligatory precaution: the mukallaf must act according to precaution if he wants to stay on the taqlīd of whoever he performs taqlīd to. But, in this ruling, he or she can act upon the verdict of another scholar if he wants to change the person who he performs taqlīd to. The condition that must be followed is that he must change from the most knowledgeable to the next most knowledgeable and so on.

2. Recommended precaution: the mukallaf does not have to act according to this precaution, but it is better to do so.

Notes

1. Muhammad Bāqir al-Sadr, Halaqah 1, page 126

2. Shahīd Muttaharī, Madkhal Ila al-‛Ulūm al-Islamīyyah, page 10

3. ‛Alī Mishkīnī, Istilāhāt al-Usūl, page 18

4. Shahīd Muttaharī, Madkhal Ila al-‛Ulūm al-Islamīyyah, page 8

5. Hādī al-Fadlī, Dūrūs fī al-Fiqh al-Imāmīyyah, page 39

6. Hādī al-Fadlī, Dūrūs fī al-Fiqh al-Imāmīyyah, pages 252-254

7. Hādī al-Fadlī, Dūrūs fī al-Fiqh al-Imāmīyyah, pages 255-256

The Jurisprudential Sects of Islam

We learned that Islamic jurisprudence is the knowledge of Islamic laws, what is permissible and what is forbidden, what is obligatory, what is disliked (not recommended, unfavorable) and what is recommended (favorable), and what is correct and what is incorrect.

We also know that these Islamic laws are derived from the Qurān and prophetic traditions.

We also know that the Muslims in the time of the Prophet (s) would take their religious rulings from him. They would take the rulings that had to do with worship, like prayer, pilgrimage, fasting and spiritual purification, or the rulings that had to do transactions like trade, partnership, rent, land, marriage and divorce and other rules that are found in the religion from him.

Then, after his death, some situations arose in one's prayer, fast, life, business, partnership or pilgrimage…etc that did not occur during the Prophet's (s) lifetime. They needed to know what the religious ruling was. In this case they would refer to some of the companions to take the ruling from them. Some took rulings from Imām ‛Alī bin Abī Tālib (a), some from ‛Abd Allah bin ‛Abbās and some from ‛Abd Allah bin Mas‛ūd. ‛Alī (a) was the most knowledgeable companion; the Prophet (s) said the following about him: “I am the city of knowledge and ‛Alī is its entrance.”1

But, we see some different verdicts passed by different companions and the generation that came after them called the tābi‛īn. There were many mujtahids and many differences in verdicts, but there were no jurisprudential sects like there are today. The Muslims would refer to the scholars amongst the companions, tābi‛īn and Imāms (a) for the religious rulings that they needed. Imām ‛Alī bin al-Hussayn al-Sajjād (a), Imām Muhammad bin ‛Alī al-Bāqir (a) and Imām Ja‛far bin Muhammad al-Sādiq (a) lived in these times.

How Jurisprudence sects were formed and when

The divisions of Muslims became widespread after the murder of the third khalīfa, ‛Uthmān bin ‛Affān. At that time the Muslims swore allegiance to Imām ‛Alī bin Abī Tālib (a) but Mu‛āwīyah bin Abī Sufyān refused to swear allegiance to him. Nobody followed him in this except the people of Syria. He formed his own, autonomous government there. He also took some jurists and some people who related traditions with him, and thus the major division was started.

At the same time where the Muslims and the great companions believed ‛Alī (a) to be the rightful khalīfa and the most knowledgeable person war was started between him and Mu‛āwīyah bin Abī Sufyān. Here, the belief in the Ahlul-Bayt (a) grew. The Ahlul-Bayt are glorified in the Qurān. Allah said that he removed all impurities from them and purified them a thorough purification. Allah also made it obligatory to love them and accept their authority.

A shi’a (follower) of the Ahlul-Bayt (a) is one who loves them, obeys them and believes in their rights.

The Shia had a strong presence during the fight with Mu‛āwīyah and after Imām ‛Alī bin Abī Tālib's martyrdom when his son al-Hassan (also the son of the daughter of the prophet) became the khalīfa. After that a big argument arose between Imām al-Hussayn bin ‛Alī bin Abī Tālib (a) and Yazīd bin Mu‛āwīyah which lead to a war between them in a place called Karbalā', Iraq. This war took place on the tenth day of the Islamic month 'Muharram' in the 61stA.H.. Imām Hussayn and 78 of his companions and family members were martyred in this war.

With all of this, there were not jurisprudential sects of Islam as there are today. There were two different sects at that time. One of them followed the Ahlul-Bayt (a) those that Allah cleansed from all impurities and purified them a thorough purification, those who did not say anything except what their forefather, the messenger of Allah (s) said. The Ahlul al-Bayt (a) are none other than Imām ‛Alī, Hassan, Hussayn and the nine Imāms that came from his lineage (a). The other group followed the Umawī (Umayyad) judges. Of course amongst the Umawī judges there were different opinions and various verdicts.

At the end of the first century A.H. different jurists appeared and the Islamic sciences took form. Examples of these jurists are: Sa‛īd bin al-Mussayab, al-Hassan al-Basrī and Sufyān al-Thawrī who lived in the same time as Imām Muhammad al-Bāqir bin ‛Alī bin al-Hussayn bin ‛Alī bin Abī Tālib. The scholars of this time learned from him.

Islamic jurisprudence started to spread out in the second century A.H. Islamic jurisprudential sects also started to form because many jurists appeared and they made many religious verdicts which differed from the verdicts of others. Some of the differences include leaving the arms down in prayer or crossing them or in some of the rulings regarding wudū', fasting, divorce, inheritance, etc.

The jurisprudential sects of Islam that are taught and have scholars and students all over the world are:

1. The Ahlul-Bayt (a) sect. It is also called the Ja‛farī sect or the Shia Imāmīyyah sect.

2. The Hanafī sect.

3. The Mālikī sect.

4. The Shāfi‛ī sect.

5. The Hanbalī sect.

Each of these jurisprudential sects will be described:

The Ahlul-Bayt (a) Sect

It must be stated that the Ahlul-Bayt (a) do not have a separate sect, or different laws than their forefather Muhammad (s). Instead, they continued his path and were taught by him. Rules pertaining to worship, contracts and other miscellaneous subjects are all taken from one source full of wisdom and light, which is none other than the Prophet (s). Imām al-Sādiq (a) said: “We do not give any legal rulings or ethical advice unless it was passed to us by our great father who obtained it from the Prophet (s).” So, their traditions, unless changed, depict the essence of Islam that was sent from the lord of the worlds.2

The Ahlul-Bayt (a) sect is also named the Ja‛farī sect attributed to Imām Ja‛far al-Sādiq bin Muhammad al-Bāqir bin ‛Alī (Zayn al-‛Ābidīn) bin al-Hussayn (al-Sibt) bin ‛Alī bin Abī Tālib (a).

It is also named the Shia Imāmīyyah sect because of their belief in the 12 Imāms from the Ahlul-Bayt (a).

Imām Ja‛far al-Sādiq (a) was the Imām of the Muslims in his time. He was the teacher of scholars and famous for his greatness, knowledge, abstinence from the world and worship.

Imām Ja‛far al-Sādiq (a) was born in the 82nd A.H., during the Umayyad reign. He taught and spread Islamic sciences in the prophet's mosque, just like his forefathers did. He would relate traditions from his father, al-Bāqir (a) who related them from his forefathers all the way up to the messenger of Allah (s). He gave 1000 jurisprudential verdicts and was ahead of the scholars of his time in Islamic sciences, for example theology, tafsīr (exegesis) and everything else Muslims treasured.

There were around 4000 religious students that related traditions from him.

Some of Imām al-Sādiq's (a) students were experts in the prophetic traditions and leaders of different sects, for example: Imām Abī Hanīfah (the leader of the Hanafī sect) and Imām Mālik bin Anas (the leader of the Mālikī sect).

The Ahlul-Bayt jurisprudential sect has spread today to different areas of the Islamic world, for example Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, India, Azerbaijan, etc.

The Hanafi Sect

This sect is called the Hanafī sect because of its imām, Abī Hanīfah.

Abī Hanīfah's full name is al-Nu‛mān bin Thābit bin Zūtī al-Fārsī. His forefathers were from Kabul. Abī Hanīfah was born in the 80thA.H. and died in the year 150 in Baghdad.

Abī Hanīfah grew up in Kūfa and spent half of his lifetime working as a merchant before he became a seminary student and teacher. He studied under Hammād bin Abī Salamah for eighteen years before he became a scholar himself. He was one of the big scholars of his time and reached the level of ijtihād. He accepted voting and syllogism qiyas in addition to the Qurān and prophetic traditions as tools for deriving religious rulings or fatwa. Many scholars of his time refuted him on this issue. In this regard, both Imām Muhammad al-Bāqir (a) and Ja‛far al-Sādiq (a) said that when making a fatwa one must stick only to the Qurān and the prophetic traditions.

His sect spread in Iraq and later in other areas of the Islamic world. Abī Hanīfah lived for 52 years during the Umayyad reign, but did not accept them. Rather, he believed that the rule khilafat should be given to the family of ‛Alī (a). He even ruled in favor of the ‛Alawī uprising lead by Zayd bin ‛Alī bin al-Hussayn bin ‛Alī bin Abī Tālib and allowed money that was collected from zakāt taxe to be spent on the uprising. It should be mentioned that Zayd bin ‛Alī bin al-Hussayn tutored Abī Hanīfah for two years and ‛Abduallah bin al-Hussayn bin ‛Alī bin Abī Tālib was also one of his tutors.

The Umayad rulers asked him to become a judge and he refused. Because of this, they put him in prison and whipped him for days, until he was on the brink of death. Then, the prison warden helped him to escape and he fled to Mecca. Afterwards, he was travelling between Mecca and Medina pretending to be a nomad. During this period of time he studied for two years under Imām al-Sādiq (a). He has a famous saying describing this experience: “If it wasn't for these two years, al-Nu‛mān would have perished.” He stayed there until the end of rule of the Umayyad dynasty on the hands of the Abbasid dynasty.

When the Abbasid dynasty came to power, Abī Hanīfah refused to help them. Al-Mansūr imprisoned him and ordered him to be lashed 120 times which resulted in his death.

The Maliki Sect

This sect is named its founder Imām Mālik bin Anas bin Mālik al-Asbahī who was a member of the Yemenite al-Asbah tribe.

Mālik bin Anas was born in Medina in the 93rd A.H.. He was a student of some of the Islamic jurists of his time including Nāfi‛, Mawla ‛Abduallah bin ‛Umar and Ibn Shahāb al-Zahrī. He also studied under Imām Ja‛far al-Sādiq (a) and related traditions from him. He said: “I have not seen anyone better than Ja‛far bin Muhammad.”

He lived under the Umayyad rule for forty years and during this time he did not portray himself as a scholar.

When the Umayyad dynasty fell and the Abbasid dynasty came to power he showed inclination towards the family of ‛Alī bin Abī Tālib (a) and ruled that they were the legitimate rulers and that rule khalafah was their right. He passed a verdict making it obligatory to aid Muhammad bin ‛Abd Allah bin al-Hassan bin ‛Alī bin Abī Tālib who revolted against the Abbasid dynasty. As a punishment, Ja‛far bin Sulaymān, the Abbasid governor of Medina at the time, ordered him to be lashed 50 times. The lashes were so hard that his shoes fell off.

Later on, the Abbasid khalīfa, Abū Ja‛far al-Mansūr changed his mind and improved his relations with Imām Mālik. He asked Imām Mālik to write a jurisprudential book, in accordance to his sect, to be published. Imām Mālik wrote the book Al-Mūattā', the book of religious verdicts, and the Mālakī jurisprudential sect became the official sect of the Abbasid Empire and missionaries were sent as far as Africa and Indonesia to preach Al-Mūattā' and the Mālakī sect. Imām Mālik differed from Abī Hanīfah on his views regarding voting and syllogism as valid sources of religious rulings. He died in the 179thA.H..

The Shafi'i Sect

This sect was named after its founder Imām Muhammad bin Idrīs bin ‛Abbās bin ‛Uthmān al-Shāfi‛ whose lineage traced back to Hāshim, the son of ‛Abd al-Muttalib, the Prophet's (s) grandfather.

Imām Shāfi‛ī was born in the 150thA.H., the same year that Abī Hanīfah died. He was an orphan and his mother raised him in Yemen. When he reached 10 years of age he went to Mecca to learn reading and writing. He then lived in the desert for 17 years before becoming a religious student. He studied under the scholars of his time such as Muslim bin Khālid al-Makhzūmī and Mālik bin Anas (the founder of the Mālikī sect and the author of al-Mūattā'.) When Imām Mālik passed away he returned to Yemen.

During Rashīd's reign, he was charged with helping the ‛Alawī movement along with others by the governor of Yemen. He was then sent to Baghdād to be tried. Many were killed but Shāfi‛ī was saved.

He then migrated to Egypt and preached his sect there. His sect was also spread by his students in other parts of the Islamic world. Imām Shāfi‛ī died in the 198thA.H.

He has said: “If there is a prophetic tradition in opposition to my view, throw my view against the wall.”3

The Hanbali Sect

This sect was named after its founder Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal who was an Arab.

He was born in Baghdād in 164 A.H. He started his studies there at the age of 15. He studied under both Imam al-Shāfi‛ī's and ‛Ali Abī Yusif al-Qādī (Abī Hanīfah's student.) He also studied under different scholars of his time, such as Harīz, one of Imām Sādiq's (a) students.

This sect was spread like the other sects. This sect is still practiced in the Arabian Peninsula and other parts of the Islamic world. Ahmad bin Hanbal died in Baghdād in 241 A.H.

Notes

1. Al-Sharīf al-Murtada, Tanzīh al-Anbiyā’, page 212

2. Bāqir Sharīf al-Qurayshī, Tuhfaāt min Sīrat A’imah Ahl al-Bayt (a), page 12

3. Asad Haydar, Al-Imām al-Sādiq wa al-Madhāhib al-Arba‛h, volume 1, page 175

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.