The Five Universals

When the theologians invented the science of speculative theology, in order to support the articles of faith with rational evidence, their approach was to use particular evidence, which they mentioned in their books.

Thus, they proved the createdness of the world by affirming that accidents exist and are created, that bodies cannot possibly be free from accidents, and that something that cannot be free from created things must itself be created.

Or, they affirmed the oneness of God by the argument of mutual antagonism 703 They affirmed the existence of primeval attributes with reference to the four comprehensive (attributes), 704 in that they drew conclusions from the visible as to the supernatural. There are other such arguments mentioned in their books.

Then, they strengthened that evidence by inventing basic principles constituting a sort of premises for the evidence. Thus, they affirmed the existence of atomic matter and atomic time and the vacuum. They denied nature 705 and the intellectual combination of quiddities.

They affirmed that an accident does not persist 2 moments.

They also affirmed the existence of the “state,” that is, an attribute of something existing, that neither exists nor yet does not exist. They have still other basic principles upon which they have built their particular arguments.

It then came to be the opinion of Shaykh Abul-Hasan (al-Ash’ari), Judge Abu Bakr (al-Baqillani), and Professor Abu Ishaq (al-Isfarayini), that the evidence for the articles of faith is reversible in the sense that if the arguments are wrong, the things proven (by them) are wrong.

Therefore, Judge Abu Bakr thought that the arguments for the articles of faith hold the same position as the articles of faith themselves and that an attack against them is an attack against the articles of faith, because they rest on those (arguments).

All of logic revolves around intellectual combination and the affirmation of the outside existence of a natural universal to which must correspond the mental universal that is divided into the five universals:

1. genus
2. species
3. difference
4. property
5. general accident

The speculative theologians think that this is wrong. The universal and essential is to them merely a mental concept having no correspondence outside (the mind), or - to those who believe in the theory of “states”- (it is merely) a “state.”

Thus, the five universals, the definitions based on them, and the ten categories are wrong, and the essential attribute is a wrong (concept and does not exist). This implies that the essential and necessary propositions on which argumentation is predicated are wrong and that the rational cause is a wrong (concept and does not exist).

Thus, the Apodeictica is wrong, and the “places” (topoi) which are the central part of the Topics are a wrong (concept). They were the things from which one derives the middle term that brings the two ends together in analogical reasoning. 710

The only thing that remains is formal analogical reasoning (the syllogism). 711

The only remaining definition is the one that is equally true for all details of the thing defined and cannot be more general, because then other matters would enter it, nor can it be more restricted, because then part of those details would be left out.

That is what the grammarians express by jam’ and man’, and the speculativetheologians by tard and ‘aks (complete identity of the definition and the thing defined, and reversibility of the definition). 712

Thus, all the pillars of logic are destroyed. (On the other hand,) if we affirm their existence, as is done in logic, we (thereby) declare wrong many of the premises of the speculative theologians. This, then, leads to considering wrong their arguments for the articles of faith, as has been mentioned before. This is why the early theologians vehemently disapproved of the study of logic and considered it innovation or unbelief, depending on the particular argument declared wrong (by the use of logic). However, recent theologians since al-Ghazzali have disapproved of (the idea of the) reversibility of arguments and have not assumed that the fact that the arguments are wrong requires as its necessary consequence that the thing proven (by them) be wrong. They considered correct the opinion of logicians concerning intellectual combination and the outside existence of natural quiddities and their universals.

Therefore, they decided that logic is not in contradiction with the articles of faith, even though it is in contradiction to some of the arguments for them. In fact, they concluded that many of the premises of the speculative theologians were wrong. For instance, they deny the existence of atomic matter and the vacuum and (affirm) 713 the persistence of accidents, and so on. For the arguments of the theologians for the articles of faith, they substituted other arguments which they proved to be correct by means of speculation and analogical reasoning.

They hold that this goes in no way against the orthodox articles of faith. This is the opinion of the imam (Fakhr-ad-din Ibn alKhatib),714 al-Ghazzali, and their contemporary followers.