The Possibility of Interpreting Ibn Sina's Theory about the Accidentality of Unity as an Analytical Accident

The theory of the accidentality of unity is seen in many works of Ibn Sina. It has attracted the attention of his commentators and critics. The statement that unity is an accident does not mean that, in his view, unity is included in the nine accidental categories; instead, he intended the additionality of unity to its subject and such additionality, as long as it does not extend to external occasion, can also be interpreted based on analytic accident. Leaving aside his explicit statements regarding the external accidentality of unity, an examination of Ibn Sina's works, based on the question of the possibility of interpreting the accidentality of unity as an analytic accident, yields three types of statements:  (1) Statements that, at first glance, could indicate that "unity is an analytic accident." (2) Statements according to which, in the case of some entities, the identity of unity with existence is raised. (3) A statement that states the identity of existence and unity in an absolute way. A rational analysis of all these statements leads us to conclude that Ibn Sina's statement about the external accidentality of unity contrasts with some of his other statements. This conflict seems to be due to a change in Ibn Sina's thought or an inconsistency in his intellectual structure due to a lack of a clear understanding of philosophical concepts and their relationship to reality. In any case, his view on the accidentality of unity cannot be interpreted as the external accidentality of unity.