is that these names are general universals—(1 whether they are called univocal or graded 1)(1)—and are not terms(2) that are merely verbally equivocal. This is the position of the Mu'tazila, the Shi'a, the Ash'aris, and the Karrāmiyya. It is also the position of all other Muslims—the people of the Sunnah and the Community, the people of hadith, and others—except those few who dissent(3).

As for the specious arguments that led these people into error(4), they may be answered in two ways: through analogy and conceptualization(5).

As for the analogy, it may be stated as follows: what is said of the term “existence” also applies to the terms “reality,” “quiddity,” “self,” and “essence,” as well as to all other terms predicated of the necessarily existent and the contingently existent—indeed, of everything that exists.

Thus, when they say, “The two share in existence, while one is distinguished from the other by its reality,” (6 they are told that what is said of the term “reality” is the same as what is said of the term “existence.” This has a reality, and that has a reality, just as this has existence and that has existence. One is distinguished from the other by the existence particular to it, just as it is distinguished from the other by its reality 6)(6), which is particular to it. Accordingly, the statement that they share(7) in what is denoted by “existence,” while each