, namely the shared attribute, and then to what that attribute in turn entails, namely the judgment. It must be known that the judgment necessarily follows from the shared attribute; this is what is called the major premise in syllogistic reasoning. The mind then proceeds to establish this consequence for the original particular that entails it. The two forms of reasoning are thus essentially identical. They differ only in how the evidence is presented and arranged. Otherwise, the reality that makes it evidence—its necessarily entailing the conclusion—is one and the same.

Among the injustices and signs of ignorance of these people is that they illustrate analogical reasoning with the statement:

“The heavens are composite and must therefore have come into being, by analogy with a human being.”

They then raise objections specific to this particular argument. Yet if one were to say:

“The heavens are composite, and everything composite has come into being,”

the same objections, and others besides, would arise. But when syllogistic reasoning deals with evident subject matter, there is no difference between it and analogical reasoning. A universal is a mental exemplar of its particulars, and therefore corresponds and conforms to them. Indeed, analogical reasoning may be clearer. This is why rational people employ it in their reasoning.

Likewise, their assertion that a definition cannot be obtained through an example concerns only an example by which the thing defined is distinguished from everything else, so that one recognizes what invariably accompanies it in both directions—being present wherever it is present and absent wherever it is absent. For a definition that distinguishes the thing defined is one by which a concomitant exactly coextensive with it is known. Whenever this is achieved, the thing defined has been distinguished from everything else. This is what constitutes a definition according to the great majority of theoretical thinkers, who do not permit the inclusion of the general genus in a definition.

Thus, if the aim is a nominal definition, and a non-Arab asks what the word “bread” denotes, then is shown a loaf and told, “This,” he may understand that this is a term that includes