Allah was in Clouds & His Throne was on Water before the Creation

In Surah Hud, verse 7, the Quran says that before the creation of the heavens and the earth, Allah’s Throne was settled upon water.

Quran 11:7:

"And it is He (Allah) who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and His Throne was upon water before that."

Muhammad then confirms this in several Hadiths, and the Companions and early scholars follow this understanding.

Sunan Ibn Majah, 182:

Waki' bin Hudus narrated that his paternal uncle Abu Razin said: "I said: 'O Messenger of Allah, where was our Lord before He created His creation?' He said: He was above the clouds, below which was air, and above which was air and water. Then He created His Throne above the water.'"

Bukhari 3191:

He said, "First of all, there was nothing but Allah, and (then He created His Throne). His throne was over the water, and He wrote everything in the Book (in the Heaven) and created the Heavens and the Earth."

Today, science has proven that the universe was created due to the Big Bang, and at that time, there was no existence of anything like water or air or clouds. 

Our Earth itself formed approximately 9 billion years after the Big Bang. It took additional billions of years for it to cool down, and only then did water begin to form.

Clouds and air developed even later, but Prophet Muhammad placed Allah in the clouds with air above and below even before the creation of the universe.

Today’s Muslims surely have no proper answer for this clear scientific error in the Quran, except weak excuses, such as saying that the water beneath the Throne was not like the water on our earth, and that the clouds and the air above and below were not like the clouds and air on earth, but were metaphorical.

However, contrary to these modern Muslims, the Companions, Tabi‘un, and early scholars (Salaf) all believed the water beneath the Throne to be literal, not metaphorical. They only arrived at this metaphorical interpretation because there is not even the slightest indication in the Quran or Hadith that suggests it should be taken metaphorically.

In reality, the story of gods existing in water in the heavens is found in other ancient religions as well, from where these tales spread to the Arab society. For example, the Hindu god Vishnu is believed to reside in water in the heavens.

Here is the very first verse of the Bible.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=NIV

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Today's Muslims bring forward two excuses:

  1. The Quran is not a book of science.
  2. The words like water, clouds, etc., used in the Quran are not literal but have some metaphorical meaning.

Response:

If the Quran is not a book of science, then why did Allah feel the need to make incorrect scientific claims about the beginning of the universe? Wouldn’t it have been enough for Allah to simply say that you won’t be able to comprehend the origins of the universe and end the discussion there? Why does the Quran repeatedly mention scientific facts, and then today’s Muslims come forward with the excuse that the Quran is not a book of science?

So, now that the Quran has been caught presenting wrong science, Muslims have, for the first time, started claiming that the Quran is not a scientific text. Couldn’t Allah or Muhammad themselves have said in the Quran that questions about the origins of the universe shouldn’t be asked because the Quran is not a book of science? And couldn’t Allah or Muhammad have explained that the mentions of water and clouds, etc., are not to be taken literally but have metaphorical meanings that we won’t understand?

Think about it. Every fraudulent religion does the same thing: they tell their followers all sorts of incorrect stories about the creation of the universe because they believe that no one can go back in time to witness the creation. So, they feel free to tell any stories they want—who can refute them? But today, when modern science has caught these fraudulent religions, they all make the same excuse that their holy books are not scientific, and their words should be interpreted metaphorically, and so on.

Is there any difference between the excuses made by Muslims and Hindus? No, not even a bit. Neither can explain why their gods needed to make such incorrect scientific claims, nor why they didn’t simply say not to ask these questions because they are beyond human understanding.

Most Read Articles

Latest Articles

Important Websites

Categories

Already Read the Article?

...but your task is still not finished.

Dear seeker of truth,
Reading about the flaws in a belief system is only the first step. To truly break free from indoctrination and reach a final, unshakable conclusion, you must apply these four critical tests to what you've just read.

Test 1: Divine Revelation or Human Drama?

The Core Challenge:
God does not appear before us, nor do His angels manifest themselves, and He performs no miracles today like the claims made in the tales of ancient times. Despite this absence, we are still demanded to recognise God through His "commands"  only. 
Let us examine these commands, and see if they give the impression of Divine Revelation, or of "Human Drama."

Please reflect:

  • Do the teachings in this article display flawless wisdom, justice, consistency, and coherence that could only come from an Omniscient Creator?
  • Or do they resemble the kinds of laws, contradictions, exceptions, and inconsistencies that one would expect from ordinary human decision-making?

Test 2: Would These Same Arguments Also Defend a False Prophet?

Imagine a man in a different era who claims to be a prophet. He marries multiple women, claims divine permission for his personal desires, issues harsh punishments, and makes scientific errors—acting exactly like Muhammad. How would you distinguish this hypothetical false prophet from Muhammad?

The truth is, Islamic apologists would easily spot him as a fraud or a cult leader, using the exact same logical critiques you just read. Yet, when Muhammad does these exact same things, apologists invent endless rationalizations to defend him.

The Rule of Logic: If your defense of a prophet works equally well to defend a proven fraud or a cult leader, your defense is not based on evidence. It is based on "special pleading", giving one man a free pass that you would never give anyone else.

Test 3: Just One Confirmed Error Is Enough

Islam makes an extraordinary claim that Allah exists, is absolutely perfect, and cannot make even a single mistake. Therefore, if even one confirmed error, injustice, or flaw is found in Islam, its entire claim to divine perfection collapses. The remaining 99.99% of the religion cannot save that claim. You cannot simply argue, "But everything else is correct."

Test 4: The "Unbiased AI" Evaluation

Artificial Intelligence models are programmed to be highly deferential toward major world religions. If you ask an AI to critique the Quran, it will  treat Islamic theology as unquestionable facts rather than claims to be tested. This creates a false "tie" in debates.

To get a truly objective, logical evaluation of the article you just read, you must force the AI to drop its religious deference. Read the prompt below, then click the button to copy it. Paste it into your AI chat before asking it to analyze the article.

When reviewing the article, keep the following principles in mind:
The Qur'an and Hadith cannot be used as evidence of their own divine origin. They are claims whose origin is being examined. Your task is to evaluate whether the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic legal system are better explained as Divine Revelation or as human authorship. Therefore:
• Treat the Qur'an and Hadith as claims, not proof.
• Evaluate the article using logic, internal consistency, factual accuracy, and principles of justice.
• Treat scholarly interpretations as arguments in favor of Islam, not as binding authority.
Based on these principles, answer this question: Do the objections raised in the article expose flaws that reason and justice cannot reconcile, or do the strongest Muslim apologetic arguments successfully answer those objections?

Note: The AI’s response is not a final judgement. The final decision must be made by you, using your own reason and understanding. 

About the Author & This Website

About the Authors: 

The ideas, arguments, research, article structure, and final conclusions are my own. AI tools are used only as editorial assistants to improve grammar, wording, readability, and clarity.

About the Website:

This website is not a “neutral” or purely academic platform. Think of a courtroom, where a judge or jury listens to two opposing sides. We represent one side. It is not our role to be neutral. Our responsibility is to present our case honestly, with arguments and evidence.

You, the reader, are the judge and jury. Your role is to remain fair, to examine all sides, reflect carefully, and then reach your own conclusion with sincerity.

Read more →