Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Rules relatedTo socializing

بسم الله الرّحمن الرّحيم

أَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ مَا يَكُونُ مِن نَّجْوَى ثَلاًثَةٍ إلاَّ هُوَ رَابِعُهُمْ وَلاَ خَمْسَةٍ إِلاَّ هُوَ سَادِسُهُمْ وَلاَ أَدْنَى مِن ذَلِكَ وَلاَ أَكْثَرَ إِلاَّ هُوَ مَعَهُمْ أَيْنَ مَا كَانُوا ثُمَّ يُنَبِّئُهُم بِمَا عَمِلُوا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ .

“Do you not see that Allah knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth?Nowhere is there a secret counsel between three persons but He is the fourth of them, nor (between) five but He is the sixth of them, nor less than that nor more but He is with them where ever they are; then He will inform them of what they did on the day of resurrection: surely Allah is Aware of all things.”

al-Qur’an · Surah Mujadilah · Ayah 7

Rules Related to Speaking

A ) Men Speaking to Non-Mahram Women

172 – Rule: Menare allowed to speak to non-Mahram women as long as the following two conditions are met:

It is not with the intention of lust.

The speaking does not lead either one of them to commit a sin.

173 – Rule: It is Makruh to speak to non-Mahram women, unless it is in the case of a necessity, especially if the onebeing spoken to is a young woman.

174 – Rule: If a man knows that by speaking to a non-Mahram woman, he will fall into sin, then he must not speak to her; whether the woman speaks in such a way that she lures him intosin, or the topic is such that the man falls into sin.

175 – Rule: It is haram for a man to speak to a non-Mahram woman with the intention of making her fall into sin.

Therefore: The conversations that are carried out with the intention of making others fall into sin (lustful conversations), such as explaining or describing sexual acts and scenes, are haram.

176 – Question:Is it allowed for a man to talk to a non-Mahram woman who wants to speak to him in a lustful manner? (In the event that the man knowsthat he will not fall into a sin?)

Answer: Itis not allowed .

Answer: In the event that it helps or leads to a haram act, itmust be avoided .

177 – Rule: If a man fears that by speaking to a non-Mahram woman, she will make him fall into sin, then he must not speak to her.

178 – Rule: If a man knows that by speaking to a non-Mahram woman he will fall into sin other than that of a sexual nature, then itis not allowed for him to speak to her.

Therefore: If a man knows that by talking to a non-Mahram woman, he will be compelled to lie, backbite, or put a false accusation on somebody - whether she makes him fall into sin, or he himself by means of talking to her falls into a sin, then it is not allowed to talk to her.

179 – Question: If one fears that by talking to a certain non-Mahram woman he will fall into sin, thenis it allowed for him to talk to her?

Answer: Itis not allowed .

180 – Question: What is the ruling for a man to talk in such a way in that he imitates a woman’s voice, or vice versa?

Answer: It is not a problem if: it is not the voice of a specific woman whom he knows and this causes her degradation or dishonor; and this action of imitation does not stimulate him and it is not something vain and futile, and the same applies the other way around (a woman imitating the voice of a man).

181 – Rule: Itis not allowed to talk to someone about anything that is related to sexual or intimate issues (except one’s spouse).

Note and warning: Sometimes, itcan be seen that in the hearts of men, the devil has become so firm that many of their social gatherings are doubtful, and it can be seen that a man has more interest in mingling with non-Mahram women than with his own Maharim.For example, there is a situation in which he can ask something from a man, but instead, he asks a non-Mahram woman; sometimes his conversation with non-Mahram women is prolonged so as to be able to talk with them more; going to places of amusement and on vacations with non-Mahram women is more attracting to him; if there is a place where there are non-Mahram women, he desires to be there more than other places; and when guests come over, he tries to talk and socialize more with the non-Mahram women than the men. He likes to stay in the presence of non-Mahram women more so than anywhereelse . In summary, he likes any action that non-Mahram women are participating in more than any other work.

Men - especially our dear youth must stay away from these types of things because this kind of socializing and speaking (with members of the opposite sex) are usually associated with the intention of lust and obtaining (sexual) pleasure and can lead to being haram, according to Islam.

B) Women Talking to Non-Mahram Men

182 – Rule: Womenare permitted to speak to non-Mahram men if the following conditions are met:

The speakingis not done with the intention of lust and seeking (sexual) pleasure.

The woman does not make her voice soft and attractive.

There is no fear of falling into corruption.

183 – Rule: It is Makruh for women to speak to men if it is not necessary.

184 – Rule: It is not allowed for a woman to speak to a non-Mahram man with the intention of making him fall into sin; whether she specifies that the reason she is talking to him is to make him fall into sin, or she talks about something that would make the non-Mahram man fall into a sin - such as explaining stimulating and sensual scenes, or explaining about things that would make the non-Mahram man become aroused upon hearing them.

Note: Just as was mentioned concerning men, sometimes it is possible that women also become under the influence and tricks of the devil. Thus, sometimes a woman will be so friendly to a non-Mahram man as if it is her brother. Especially those women who are in more contact with non-Mahram men more than others, such as nurses, or those women who works in various businesses and companies, in sports and fitness clubs, etc… must be extra cautious (when dealing with non-Mahram men).

Asking help from non-Mahram men for things that are not necessary; asking non-Mahram men questions while it is possible to ask a Mahram the same question; having discussions with men and putting one’s self between a discussion; exposing one’s talents or virtues to a non-Mahram and socializing with non-Mahram men more; having more of an affection to work in an environment in which there are non-Mahram men – in summary, all examples such as these in which there is a probability of falling into sin, and interactions in such places which are commonly done with the intention of deriving (sexual) pleasure, can lead to being be haram, according to the Laws of Islam.

185 – Rule: When a woman is speaking to a man, she must not make her voice pleasing and soft, such that if the person with whom she is talking tohas a sickness in his heart, he will become attracted to her, even if she is talking to him about a general matter.

186 – Question:Is a woman allowed to speak to a non-Mahram man who wants to talk with her in a lustful manner? (In the event that the woman knowsthat she will not fall into sin?)

Answer: Itis not allowed .

187 – Question:Is it allowed for women to recite in a chorus in the presence of non-Mahram men? What is the ruling for non-Mahram men to hear such a thing?

Answer: If it leads to corruption, then itis not allowed . Rather, normally, when women are singing or reciting in the presence of men and men are listening to it, this leads to corruption and thus, itis not allowed .

Answer: As long as there is no intention of lust or corruption involved, then women singing in a chorus and non-Mahram men listening to them, is not a problem.

188 – Question:Is it allowed for a man to listen to a woman singing alone, if it does not lead to (sexual) excitement?

Answer: Itis not allowed .

Answer: If it leads to corruption, then itis not allowed . Rather, normally, when women are singing or reciting in the presence of men and men are listening to it, this leads to corruption, and thus, itis not allowed .

189 – Question: What is the ruling on listening to poems (read) with emotion and feeling that the radio stations of the Islamic Republic of Iran broadcast?

Answer: If it leads to corruption, then itis not allowed .

Answer: If it is not in the category of Ghina and it is not stimulating, then it is not a problem.

190 – Rule: It is not a problem for women to recite Qur’an in front of non-Mahram men, even if it is in a pleasing voice, with the condition that it is not arousing nor does it cause corruption.

If it leads to corruption, then it is not permitted; rather, most often, women reading (Qur’an) in the presence of men and men listening to such a thing leads to corruption and thus, it is not allowed.

Women and girls must not recite the Qur’an in a tone in the presence of non-Mahram men, and similarly, if a man is reciting in a way that a woman gets enjoyment (of a lustful type), then it is a problem.

191 – Question:Is it allowed to read romance novels in which sexual issues are being discussed?Also , is it allowed to print such books?

Answer: Itis not allowed .

192 – Question: What is the ruling for writing letters to non-Mahram men and discussing romantic or lustful things in the letter?

Answer: One must refrain from all things that may lead to corruption.

Answer: Itis not allowed .

The Rules of Touching

193 – Rule: Body contact is not allowed with one who its is not allowed to look at, and every kind of touching of the body to any part of the other one’s body is haram and one must refrain from this; unless it from on top of the clothing and it is without the intention of lust.

194 – Question:Is it allowed to shake the hand of a non-Mahram? What is the ruling if itis done without the intention of lust?

Answer: Itis not allowed , unless it is done on top of clothing, and in this situation, according to Ihtiyat Wajib, one must not squeeze the other one’s hand.

195 – Question: We are living in a Western country and attending University there, and whenever we meet our female Professors or fellow students (female), we are compelled to shake their hands, and if we don’t, then this will make the Muslim students look as if they have bad manners. What is our responsibility in this regard?

Answer: It is necessary for you to explain to them that not shaking the hands of non-Mahram women is not due to bad manners, but instead, it is because of the beliefs in Islam and holding on to its commandments.

196 – Question: In some areas, the rules of Mahram and non-Mahramare not given much importance, especially in the smaller villages. Forexample a woman would not cover herself in front of her brother-in-law, and she would consider her brother-in-law as her actual brother, in the same way the brother-in-law also considers this woman as his actual sister. How many a times has it happened that they shake each other’s hands or even kiss each other! The same thing can be said for cousins of the opposite sex andthey also indulge in similar actions. These thingsare done out of pure ignorance and without any sexual excitement or lust – thus, is it allowed? In the event that itmust be avoided , if it is done over top of clothing, then what is the ruling?

Answer: None of the examples mentioned above are permitted and it is better that one should also avoid the above-mentioned acts even if it is over top of clothing.

197 – Rule: Even though looking at the face and hands of a Muslim woman in hijab, and looking at that amount of the body of a non-Muslimwoman which is normally kept open is not a problem, however touching them is still not allowed.

Therefore: Men and women who are non-Mahram are not allowed to shake hands with each other, nor can they have any other kind of bodily contact.

Note: In the below mentioned circumstances, one must be more cautious than in other instances about the bodily contact (not taking place) with a non-Mahram:

Taking or giving even a small object from the hands of a non-Mahram (for example exact change).

Taking or giving keys, or any other small things.

Sitting beside a non-Mahram in taxis (or buses), or when guests come over to one’s house.

Non-Mahram men and women walking in a common, crowded area such as corridors, small alleys, doors, gates, etc.

Men going to gatherings in whichlots of women are present, or any place where there are lots of non-Mahram women present.

Women going (or passing by) a gathering or busy place where there arelots of non-Mahram men present.

At the time of buying and selling things in stores.

198 – Rule: Itis permitted to look at, and touch the body of an old woman without the intention of sexual excitement.

199 – Question: At the time of giving money to a driver (taxi), if the hand of the woman touches the hand of the driver, is this haram?

Answer: If it happens accidentally, then it is not a problem; but if purposely the hands meet one another, then itis not allowed .

200 – Rule: Bodily contact that happens in busy places (such as markets, processions, Salat al-Jumu‘ah, funerals, the Sanctuaries (haram) of the A’immah (Peace be upon all of them), and the House of Allah () in an unintentional way between a non-Mahram man and woman is not a problem, with the condition that one does not go to these places with the purpose and intention of being touched.

Therefore: It is haram for one to go to or pass by a place, sit or stand beside a non-Mahram in a taxi or bus, with the intention of wanting to make body contact with a non-Mahram, and thus it must be avoided.

201 – Question: What is the ruling for going to places with a non-Mahram?

Answer: If itis done with the intention of lust, then it is not allowed.

202 – Rule: According to Ihtiyat Wajib, men must not hug, kiss or put girls that are 6 years of age or older on their laps.

One must refrain from things like that that may lead to corruption.

According to Ihtiyat Mustahab, it is better that men do not hug non-Mahram girls who are 6 years of age or older, sit them on their knees, or kiss them.

203 – Question:Is one allowed to sit near a non-Mahram in a taxi or in other means of transportation?(In the event that there is contact between the two from on top of the clothing)?

Answer: If there is no intention of having pleasure or excitement and there is no chance of falling into corruption, then the act of sitting in itself is not a problem.

204 – Question: If a woman fears that in the event that she goes into a taxi that has a non-Mahram man in it, she or the taxi driver will fall into sin, is it allowed for her to go into that taxi? If the taxi driver has this fear,is it allowed for him to pick her up?

In both circumstances, it is an area of doubt.

The Rules of Kissing

205 – Rule: Kissing a Mahram is not a problem with the condition that it is not with the intention of lust. (With the exception of one’s spouse,which is fully allowed. )

Therefore: Kissing the son of one’s sister, grandchild, or any child, and as a whole, kissing any Mahram with a lustful intent is haram, with the exception of one’s spouse.

206 – Rule: If a person knows that if by kissing someone else, whether itbe a child or one’s Mahram, he will fall into sin, then he must not kiss that person.

207 – Rule: Kissing any part of the body of a Mahram, which one is permitted to look at is not a problem, whether itbe on the forehead, the shoulders, the hands, etc.

208– Rule: It is haram to kiss anything with the intention of lust, even if it is a stone, wood, metal, a statue, etc…

If by kissing in this manner (of lust) one does not ejaculate, then it is not haram.

General Rule

209 – Rule: Any kind of touching with a part of the body, to an object or person with the intention of lust is haram (with the exception of one’s spouse).

If someone touches something with the intention of lust, but does not ejaculate, then (his action) is not haram. However, if ejaculation takes place, then itwill be counted as masturbation, and this (masturbation) is haram. It is haram for a person to touch anything with the intention of lust, whether itbe a man or woman, a baligh or non-baligh, even if ejaculation does not take place. The only exception to this rule is one’s spouse.

Therefore: Eating something lustfully, looking at something or someone, touching or smelling anything or listening to any noise – that of a person or anything else, saying a word to someone, even if itbe with a child, and in summary, any action that is performed with the intention of lust, is haram.

Masturbation

210 – Rule: Masturbation is haram and one must refrain from it.

If someone intentionally breaks his fast in the Month of Ramazan by masturbation then he must give the combined kaffarahs.

According to Ihtiyat (Wajib), the combined kaffarahmust be given .

According to Ihtiyat Mustahab, the combined kaffarahshould be given .

Note: Masturbation means that a one performs anyaction which leads to the discharge of semen.

211 – Question:I am a youth and when I think about arousing scenes, semen is discharged from me. Does this action (only thinking about this) with the aim of havingsemen discharged fall into the category of masturbation?

Answer: If itis performed intentionally with the aim or desire of having semen discharged, and one knows that by having such thoughts, semen will come out, then one must refrain from this.

212 – Rule: Itis not allowed to make or prepare anything for the purpose of a forbidden sexual act.

213 – Question: What is the ruling on the one who masturbates? Does this action necessitate a Ghusl?

Answer: This action is haram, and if one has certainty that semen has been discharged,then one must perform a Ghusl.

214 – Question: What should one do to control one’s sexual desires, and in the situation (where onecan not control his sexual desires), is masturbation allowed or not?

Answer: Certain things that one can performinclude: fasting, not eating too much food, refraining from eating certain foods that increase the sexual desire, and having those that lower the sexual passion. Masturbation however, in every instance is haram; and the best way to make sure that the sexual desires are not the reason for committing a haram act is permanent or temporary marriage, which (also) has a lot of reward in it.

215 – Question:Is it allowed to think about or imagine arousing scenes that make a person become sexually excited?

Answer: One must try to keep away from these kinds of thoughts, by occupying oneself with work or other thoughts.

Answer: Thinking about such things in itself is not a problem.

216 – Question: In your Risalah (book of Islamicrulings) it states that masturbation is religiously forbidden, however, please explain what Islam’s view is on the person who has masturbated?

Answer: It is wajib for the one who has masturbated to ask for forgiveness (from Allah), but before one asks for forgiveness, the Islamic punishment for committing masturbation must be handed out in the case that it is proven to the Islamic Judge that a haram act had been performed.

Rules Relating to Gatherings, Guests and Visiting

217 – Rule: The intermingling of non-Mahram men and women is makruh, except if it is between an old man and an old woman.

Note: It is makruh in the event that there is nothing haram in the gathering, otherwise this intermingling will become haram. For example, if in a gathering, women are not observing complete (or proper) hijab; or they have any zinat on; or there is haram bodily contact taking place between the men and women, then this type of mixing becomes haram.

218 – Rule: Itis not allowed to go to a gathering in which one knows that something haram will take place. For example, to accept a dinner invitation in which a person knows that by going there hewill be forced to look at non-Mahram women without hijab, or he will backbite others, lie, or perform any other haram act, is not allowed.

The act in itself is not a problem, but in every instance, it is wajib to refrain from sinning even if this means refraining from the “introductory” act (which in this case would mean not going to such a gathering), which would necessitate committing a sin (if performed).

Note: In the understated examples of programs and other mixedgatherings there is a probability of sin, and more so than other instances, one must be extra cautious:

To have mixed dinner parties, especially if the people attending are youths; non-Mahrams eating together at the same table; going with non-Mahrams to amusement parks or other entertainment places such as gardens, parks, mountains, travelling – especially if a non-Mahram man and woman are in a car alone; to joke around with a non-Mahrams; two non-Mahram working together in one shop, etc…

219 – Rule: If a non-Mahram man and woman are in a secluded place in which there is no one else present, and no one else can enter there,then if there is a fear of falling into sin, they must leave that place for them to remain there is haram.

For a non-Mahram man and woman to be in a secluded place in which no one else is present, and also no one else can enter, is haram - whether they are busy in the remembrance of Allah; talking; sleeping or awake; and their Salat in that place as well is not valid. However, if the place is such that another person can enter (into the room), or there is a child who can distinguish between good and evil (Mumayyiz) present, then it is not a problem.

According to Ihtiyat Wajib, a man and woman who are non-Mahram, must not be alone in a secluded place where there is no one else and where no one else can enter; even if they are only reciting their Salat in that place, and in fact, there is also a problem with the Salat that is read there.

It is haram for a man and woman who are non-Mahram to each other to remain in a secluded place in which there, is nobody else there in the event that there is a possibility of falling into corruption, even if others are able to enter into that place. However, if there is no possibility of falling into corruption, then it is not a problem.

220 – Question: Respectfully,I would like to inform you that we have relatives, who in addition to not reciting their Salat, also associate with Christians. Furthermore, their girls and women do not observe the proper hijab and their hair also shows, and however much we advise them, it does not have any effect. If we want to close our eyes in our own house, then it is not possible, and if we look at them, then it is a sin. In this instance, what should we do? What is the ruling on our interactions with them?

Answer: If it will have an effect, then enjoin them to good and forbid them from evil, and other than this, you have no other responsibility, and in the event that you have relations and socializing with them, you must be careful that youdon’t fall into sin by looking at non-Mahrams. It is not necessary to cut off relations with them since there is a possibility that maybe, by keeping ties with them, it may have an affect on them. May Allah () guide them and acquaint them with the Laws of Islam.

Rules Relating to Showing off

221 – Rule: It is haram to show off with the intention of wanting to making others fall into sin.

For Example: It is haram for a woman to show off in such a way that a non-Mahram man’s attentionwill be drawn towards her or he approaches her.Therefore, to walk in a specific way, talk, perform a specific action, smile or laugh in a special way to a non-Mahram, joke, or even to study in front of a non-Mahram with the aim of drawing the attention of the non-Mahram and make him fall into sin; wearing a specific kind of clothing, holding different things such as a bag, book, or flowers or even the way of holding these things in one’s hand so as to make others fall into sin, looking at non-Mahrams in a certain way, etc… all of these are examples which, if done with an intention of drawing the attention of others and making them fall into sin, are haram.

Therefore: The youth especially must refrain from showing off and things relating to the above examples.

222 – Rule: If showing off is not with the aim of wanting others to fall into sin, then it is not haram.

For example: If a woman cooks very good food when guests come over, or cleans the house better with the intention that the non-Mahram men will think that she is a hard-working woman and will be impressed by her; or one gives a very good speech with the intention that others will look at him/her in a better light, or other things like this, then these are not haram.

Note: According to the Islamic etiquette, all actions that a person commits for showing off are discouraged andare not recommended to be performed . Thus the ‘Ulama of Akhlaq have forbidden these acts, but if these acts are done with the intention of having others commit a haram act, then without doubt, they are haram.

223 – Question:Is it allowed for a woman do to something to draw the attention (eyes) of a non-Mahram man? Is it allowed for a man to do something or wear a type of clothing in such a wayso as to draw the attention of a non-Mahram woman?

Answer: In both instances, itis not allowed .

224 – Rule: Men too must not show off with the intention of wanting to make women fall into sin.

Therefore: Instances such as wearing specific kinds of clothing with the aim of having non-Mahram women fall into sin, talking, looking, walking, having a lustful behavior with the aim of drawing the attention of non-Mahram women; driving or getting onto a motorbike in a certain way in front of a Non-Mahram, joking, working out (in fitness clubs) in a specific way in front of a non-Mahram so as to make them fall into sin; putting on a necklace, keeping the arms and chest open with the aim of drawing the attention of non-Mahram women, etc… all of these and other such things are haram and one must refrain from performing them.

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.