How did Ibn Sīnā and Mullā Ṣadrā address the issue of the relationship between time and divine eternity, and is their formulation consistent with Einstein's temporal relativity?

This question lies at the heart of Islamic metaphysics and intersects with contemporary physics in a fascinating way. Ibn Sīnā's and Mullā Ṣadrā's treatment of the issue of time and eternity represents two peaks in Islamic philosophy, and their relationship to Einstein's relativity opens new horizons for dialogue between tradition and modernity.

Inadequate responses to avoid

From some defenders of tradition:

"Ibn Sīnā and Mullā Ṣadrā preceded Einstein in understanding the relativity of time." An exaggerated claim. Einsteinian relativity is a precise mathematical physical theory, while Ibn Sīnā's and Ṣadrā's conceptions are metaphysical. Similarities exist but the claim of scientific precedence is an unjustified overreach.

"Islamic philosophy does not need contemporary physics." An isolationist position that misses an opportunity for mutual enrichment. Dialogue between metaphysics and physics can deepen our understanding of both issues.

"Time in Muslim philosophers is a spiritual concept that cannot be compared to physics." A reductive simplification. Ibn Sīnā and Ṣadrā provided precise analyses of the nature of physical time alongside its metaphysical dimensions.

From some critics:

"Ancient philosophy is outdated with relativity." A hasty rejection. Relativity answers specific physical questions, while metaphysical questions about the nature of time and eternity remain open.

"There is no relationship between metaphysical conceptions and physical theories." An artificial separation. The history of science shows continuous interaction between metaphysical assumptions and scientific theories.

"Comparing Islamic philosophy to contemporary physics is a historical fallacy." A criticism with partial validity, but it misses the possibility of constructive dialogue between different intellectual traditions.

Why these responses are inadequate

They share in avoiding precise analysis of concepts and the real possibilities for dialogue between Islamic metaphysics and contemporary physics.

Ibn Sīnā's conception: Time, dahr, and sarmad

Ibn Sīnā in "al-Shifāʾ" and "al-Najāh" distinguishes between three levels:

Zamān (Physical time): The measure of motion in changing things. Connected to celestial motion (in his system) and to material change. Has past, present, and future. Divisible and countable.

Dahr: The relation of the stable to the changing. Like the relation of celestial souls (in his system) to moving bodies. Not time in the ordinary sense, but a "horizon" that encompasses time without being in it.

Sarmad (Divine eternity): The relation of the Necessary Being to all else. Not "infinite time" but complete transcendence of temporality. God "is not in time" according to Ibn Sīnā, but rather time is in His power.

The crucial point: God according to Ibn Sīnā knows temporal things "in a non-temporal manner" (bi-nahwin ghayri zamaniyyin). He knows all temporal events in "one eternal instant" without His knowledge being changing or renewed.

Mullā Ṣadrā's development: Substantial motion and time

Ṣadrā in "al-Asfār" presents a conceptual revolution:

Substantial motion (al-ḥaraka al-jawhariyya): Motion is not only in accidents, but in the substance of things. Material existence is "flowing" in itself. This makes time not merely a "measure of motion" but an authentic existential dimension.

Gradation of being and time: Being is graded (dhū marātib), and time follows the grade of being. The time of the material world differs from the time of the archetypal world differs from divine eternity.

Flowing instants: Time according to Ṣadrā is not a container in which things occur, but is itself the "flow of existence." Each instant is an existential renewal. This is close to the idea of "becoming" in contemporary philosophy.

Inner experience of time: Ṣadrā connects existential grades with temporal experience. The soul in certain states (like mystical unveiling) can transcend ordinary time and perceive "all at once" what requires long time in ordinary perception.

Einstein's relativity: Spacetime and relativity

Special (1905) and general (1915) relativity changed our understanding of time:

Spacetime: Time is not absolute and separate from space, but a fourth dimension in the fabric of spacetime. Events occur at spacetime points.

Relativity of simultaneity: There is no absolute "cosmic instant." Two simultaneous events in one reference frame may not be simultaneous in another.

Time dilation: Time passes at different rates according to velocity and gravity. A moving clock runs slower than a stationary clock (relatively).

Block Universe: A common interpretation of relativity views spacetime as a four-dimensional block, where past, present, and future "exist" together. Time as a dimension does not differ essentially from spatial dimensions.

Points of intersection and difference

Striking intersections:

1. Denial of absolute time: Ibn Sīnā, Ṣadrā, and relativity agree that time is not a Newtonian absolute container. Time is connected to being/matter/energy.

2. Multiple levels of temporality: Ṣadrā speaks of different times for different grades of being. Relativity speaks of different relative times according to reference frame.

3. Global vision of time: Ibn Sīnā's idea of divine "non-temporal" knowledge of temporal events resembles the "block universe" idea where all events exist in spacetime.

4. Time as existential dimension: Ṣadrā sees time as a dimension of flowing existence, and relativity sees it as a dimension in the fabric of spacetime.

Essential differences:

1. Mathematical versus metaphysical nature: Relativity is a mathematical theory subject to experimental testing. Ibn Sīnā's and Ṣadrā's conceptions are metaphysical, transcending empirical verification.

2. Causality and teleology: Muslim philosophers integrate teleology into their understanding of time. Relativity contains no teleology, but mathematical description of spacetime relations.

3. Consciousness and time: Ṣadrā gives great importance to consciousness in shaping temporal experience. Relativity (in its purely physical formulation) does not address consciousness.

4. Divine transcendence: Ibn Sīnā and Ṣadrā emphasize God's absolute transcendence of time. Relativity does not address this metaphysical question.

Possible consistency

Can they be reconciled? Yes, with conditions:

At the level of physical time: Ibn Sīnā and Ṣadrā can be read such that "time" (zamān) for them is consistent with relative spacetime. Both reject Newtonian absolute time.

At the level of existential hierarchy: "Dahr" and "sarmad" can be understood as metaphysical levels that transcend physical spacetime without contradicting it.

At the level of divine knowledge: The idea of divine "atemporal" knowledge of temporal events can be understood by analogy with the "block universe" vision, while maintaining the distinction between the divine perspective and physical structure.

Philosophical challenges

1. The problem of becoming: If the block universe is correct, how do we understand real change? Ṣadrā insists on the reality of substantial motion, while the block universe makes change illusory.

2. Freedom and determinism: If the future "exists" in spacetime, where is freedom? Muslim philosophers affirm human freedom despite divine foreknowledge.

3. Temporal experience: Why do we experience the "passage" of time if spacetime is a fixed block? Ṣadrā provides an explanation through grades of the soul, but this needs development.

Contemporary developments

Contemporary philosophers develop this dialogue:

- Seyyed Hossein Nasr: Sees deep compatibility between Islamic wisdom and new physics at the level of metaphysical principles.
- Muhammad Bāqir al-Ṣadr: In "Falsafatunā" analyzes the relationship between physical time and temporal perception.
- Abd al-Raḥmān Badawī: In "al-Zamān al-Wujūdī" connects Islamic tradition with contemporary existential philosophy.
- William Lane Craig: (though Christian) uses arguments from Islamic tradition in his discussion of time and eternity.

From the perspective of rational preference (rajḥān ʿaqlī)

Integration between the three visions is possible

Where we stand in this discussion today

The dialogue between Islamic metaphysics and contemporary philosophy of time is witnessing notable maturation in the period 2020-2026. On the physical level, research in quantum gravity is increasing—as with Carlo Rovelli's "timeless" model—which questions the fundamentality of time itself, and this opens new space for Ṣadrā's approaches about time's dependence on being. Contemporary philosophers of religion like Dean Zimmerman and Alan Padgett are re-examining models of divine eternity (timeless eternity versus temporal eternity) with precise analytical tools, and Islamic tradition enters this discussion more seriously through works of researchers like Mohammed Rustom and Sajjad Rizvi who present Ṣadrā to an Anglophone audience. In contrast, naturalist criticism is escalating, viewing all talk of "transcendence of spacetime" as empty of empirical content—a strong criticism that should be taken seriously. The discussion is not settled, but it has moved from superficial comparisons to genuine structural analysis of shared and divergent concepts between the two traditions.