to both; indeed, the term’s range of application is even broader.

Even if I were to say that it is homonymous, the statement would still be correct, for a single word may be applied to two things (1) both univocally and equivocally. I have used the word hypocrisy to denote the concealment of disbelief and the concealment of disobedience—sometimes by way of homonymy and sometimes by way of univocity. In the same manner, the term “existence” is applied, according to some, to the Necessary Being and to contingent beings as a homonymous predication, and according to others as a univocal one; hence it has been called a mushakkik term, that is, a predicate applied analogically.

Ibn al-Murraḥḥil asked, “How can that be?” and then launched into a discussion (2) that is not worth recounting.

Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn said (3): “Subtle meanings call for attentive listening and careful reflection. When two essences share a common element and also possess elements that distinguish them, and a single term is applied to both, it may be applied with reference to (4) the feature by which each essence is set apart from the other—thus the term is equivocal. Or it may be applied with reference to the common element between the two essences—thus the term is univocal.

“I then observed: In the language the term is originally coined for the common element; later, customary usage comes to dominate, so that on one occasion it is employed for this particular referent and on another for that. Consequently, in established usage it continues to indicate both the shared aspect and the distinctive aspect. There may also be a contextual clue—such as the definite article or a genitive construction—that singles out the distinguishing element.”