Questioning an apparent contradiction: “Everything is created from water” and the creation of Adam, angels, and Iblis

An academic inquiry by Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract.
Many theological and scientific discussions centre on Qurʾānic statements that describe the origin and composition of living things. A frequently cited phrase—rendered in many translations as “We made every living thing from water”—has been used by both apologists and critics to link Qurʾānic revelation to biological facts about life’s dependence on water. Yet when the Qurʾān also describes the origin of specific beings (for example, Adam made from clay or dust; angels as spiritual beings; Iblīs as created from fire), readers perceive tension or even contradiction. This article frames those tensions as scholarly questions worthy of careful hermeneutical, theological, and scientific reflection rather than as simple refutations. It catalogues the problems, evaluates common interpretive moves, and proposes a set of focused questions for further research.

1. Introduction — the problem stated

Certain Qurʾānic verses, commonly translated as “We made every living thing from water,” appear to assert a universal material origin for living creatures. At the same time, other Qurʾānic passages attribute the creation of Adam to clay/dust and describe angels and Iblīs (the rebellious jinn) as constituted of other elements or as spiritual beings. Prima facie, these descriptions can be read as mutually exclusive material claims. The purpose of this essay is to examine this apparent tension critically: is the Qurʾān speaking in multiple registers (metaphorical, phenomenological, ontological), and how should a reader synthesize these statements?

2. Textual and hermeneutical considerations

Genre and register. Sacred scripture often mixes cosmological description, theological affirmation, poetic metaphor, and moral instruction. A literalist reading of single phrases risks missing the Qurʾān’s discursive breadth.
Scope of the universal claim. Does the claim “everything is created from water” aim to be ontologically exhaustive (a material assertion about the substrate of all created things), or is it a restricted claim referring to a category—“every living thing” in a biological sense?
Semantic range of key words. Terms translated as “water,” “clay,” “dust,” or “fire” may function as proximate descriptors, symbolic language, or indications of form and function rather than precise material ontology.
Intertextual reading. How do the Qurʾānic passages interact? Are there places that reconcile apparent differences through qualifiers, chronology (creation narratives), or the purpose of each passage (e.g., moral, apologetic, cosmological)?

3. Theological implications and models of reconciliation

Several interpretive strategies are used by Muslim scholars and by critics to reconcile these passages:

Hierarchy of reference: Some argue that a general cosmological truth (“life depends on water”) coexists with particular creation narratives (Adam from clay), where “clay” denotes the shaping or formation rather than the ultimate material substrate.
Functional/teleological reading: “Created from water” may highlight life’s dependence upon water for biological functioning, whereas “from clay” highlights humanity’s lowly origin and moral lessons about humility.
Layered ontology: The Qurʾān may describe different ontological layers (physical body, spiritual interior, created form). Adam can be “from clay” in bodily formation while the living aspect—breath/soul and metabolic life—depends on water.
Metaphor and phenomenology: Terms such as “clay” and “fire” could be phenomenological descriptions accessible to the original audience, not modern chemical statements.

Each model has strengths and weaknesses; none is immune to critical probing.

4. Biological and philosophical reflections

From a modern biological perspective, all known terrestrial life exhibits a strong dependence on water for cellular processes. Yet:

Material substrate vs. emergent properties. Saying life “comes from water” can mean water is necessary for biochemistry, not that organisms are literally composed solely of water. Cells contain water but also complex organic molecules derived from minerals and carbon chemistry.
Origin-of-life questions. Scientific theories about abiogenesis posit aqueous environments as likely incubators for life, which would lend a non-theological reading to the Qurʾānic phrase—but science speaks at a different epistemic register than scripture.
Non-material beings. Angels and jinn, as described in Islamic tradition, belong to metaphysical categories. Comparing their scriptural descriptions to empirical biology is category-mistaken unless one first defines what counts as “creation” for non-physical entities.

5. Focused critical questions (for further theological and scholarly work)

Below I list questions that expose the interpretive and conceptual tensions; these are intended for theologians, exegetes, philosophers of religion, and scientifically literate readers.

When the Qurʾān states that “every living thing is made from water,” is the referent strictly biological life, or does it intend a cosmological, ontological claim that includes all created entities?
Does “made from water” mean “origins in aqueous environments,” “dependence upon water for life processes,” or a literal material composition claim?
How should statements about Adam being fashioned from clay/dust be reconciled with statements about life-from-water? Are these descriptions addressing different aspects (formation vs. animation)?
Are angels and jinn described as created from “different elements” in ways that imply categorical differences in mode of being (material vs. spiritual)? If so, does the “water” claim intentionally exclude spiritual beings?
To what extent do classical tafsīr (exegesis) traditions acknowledge and attempt to reconcile these divergent images? What hermeneutical principles do they use?
Can a consistent theological model be built where “water” describes the proximate material conditions for life while “clay/dust” describes the shaping of a special human form without contradiction? What are the costs of such a model for traditional exegesis?
How should contemporary scientific knowledge about cellular composition and abiogenesis inform a modern reading of these Qurʾānic phrases without reducing scripture to a scientific textbook?
Do different Qurʾānic terms for matter (e.g., ṭīn — clay, ṭabīʿa — nature, māʾ — water, nār — fire, rūḥ — spirit) operate with mutually exclusive ontologies, or is the text employing them rhetorically?
Is the tension best resolved by recognizing multiple literary registers in the Qurʾān (poetic, juridical, theological, cosmological), and if so, what methodological safeguards should interpreters use to avoid conflating registers?
What are the implications for doctrine (anthropology, angelology, soteriology) if one insists on a strictly literal material interpretation of all relevant verses?

6. Conclusion — toward a disciplined inquiry

Apparent contradictions between phrases like “everything is created from water” and other creation statements in the Qurʾān raise important hermeneutical challenges. These challenges are not mere pedantry: they shape theology, interreligious dialogue, and the interface between revelation and science. The most fruitful next steps are interdisciplinary: careful exegesis drawing from classical tafsīr, contemporary hermeneutics, and scientifically informed philosophy of biology. Scholarship should aim to clarify whether these statements are truly incompatible or whether they speak from complementary perspectives.

7. Suggested next steps for scholars and students

Compile classical and contemporary tafsīr on the relevant verses and compare methodologies.
Produce a short monograph outlining models of reconciliation and their implications.
Host interdisciplinary seminars (exegetes, philosophers, biologists) to test hermeneutical models against scientific and metaphysical criteria.

Prepared by:
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Monday, December 1, 2025