what is unproduced. Thus, the two kinds of existence share a common element, while the Necessary Existent possesses what distinguishes Him uniquely. The same applies to all the other terms.

Terms predicated in varying degrees are univocal with respect to their shared meaning. For this reason, earlier philosophical thinkers and others did not give such terms a separate designation; rather, “univocal” encompassed them all. Terms predicated in varying degrees therefore fall within univocal terms in the broad sense, while forming a separate category from univocal terms in the narrow sense.

Accordingly, a universal shared meaning must be affirmed: this is what univocal terms in the broad sense denote. It exists in an unrestricted form only in the mind, and this is what their demonstrative syllogism establishes. Differences in degree must also be affirmed: these are what terms predicated in varying degrees signify, as distinct from univocal terms in the narrow sense. This is what the Quran’s demonstrative arguments establish through a fortiori reasoning. One must also affirm the distinctive property of the Lord by which He is distinguished from everything else. This is what His signs—glorified be He—indicate, for their existence necessarily entails His own existence. No syllogism, whether demonstrative or otherwise, indicates this distinctive property.

It thus becomes clear that their demonstrative syllogism does not attain the objective through which the soul achieves perfection in its knowledge of existing things and their Creator, let alone justify saying that no objects of inquiry can be known except through it. This is an extensive subject, but the purpose here is to draw attention to the invalidity of their “negative proposition”: their claim that inferential knowledge can be attained only through their form of demonstration.