Some have said: the expression is literal when predicated of the Creator but figurative when applied to the creature; this was the view of Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Nāshiʾ.
Others reversed the matter, as did the extremist Jahmites, the esotericists, and certain philosophers.
A third position—held by the majority—maintains that it is literal in both cases.
After that, it was argued that the term is purely homonymous; another opinion, again the majority view, is that it is univocal.
For anyone who counts the “analogous” term (mushakkikah) as a subdivision of the univocal, there is no inconsistency in calling it both analogous and univocal. But whoever treats it as an altogether separate class will describe it as analogous, not univocal.
This is really a dispute over wording, for the broad notion of “univocal” already embraces what is called “analogous.”
By “analogous” we mean a term whose meanings differ in degree across its instances—such as the word “white,” which may refer to an intense whiteness, like that of snow, or to a lighter shade, like that of ivory, with the more intense hue having the stronger title to the name.
It is obvious, however, that the word “whiteness” in the language is not confined to the intense shade to the exclusion of the lighter one. The term denotes what the two share—the general, overarching meaning—and in that regard it is univocal; yet insofar as there is a gradation, it is called analogous.
If, on the other hand, one defines “univocal” as a term whose meanings are strictly equal, then the analogous must be treated as a separate category.