Talk:Zamzam Well

Biased Editing in Zamzam Well

Unfortunately, I found many biased editors reverting and adding the topic of their interest.Aziz Tarak. (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Mineral analysis

The article says,

Minerals Percentages

Calcium 198

Magnesium¨ 43.7

Chloride 335

etc.

More likely, these numbers are parts-per-million or parts-per-billion. I can't imagine how the water coming out of the well could be 198% calcium and 335% chloride. This section needs a rewrite.71.219.230.36 (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

reorganisation

I think this article needs a little reorganisation. I've just stuck in an image of a dispenser, but I think some of the introductory text needs to be separated - for example, the stuff on the SGS and health benefits of the water perhaps need to be moved into a new section. We'll see.--Mpatel 10:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, why does it say Allah(God) that's like saying Bet(House).. it makes no sense.. allah = god in arabic.. not the "arabic god" both arabic muslims and arabic christians use this word, and there are many.. such as "rabb" (see rabi) and so on... --Adam 10:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC).

Baitullah = Bait (home) + Allah (God) = God's Home. All Arabic. It has nothing to resemble Bethel

Western academic historians?

well of course they doubt these stories....ummm hello.....they are not muslims......

That's bigoted and ill-conceived. Hedfones (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hagar

If you read Genesis Hagar was never married to Abraham, but was only Sarah's servant. She was offered to Abraham only because Sarah couldn't have a child.

Hello? Considering this article is covering the Muslim perspective, don't you think we should be calling Hagar his wife? She's not his concubine in Islam!

Interestingly enough, she isn't mentioned in the Qur'an, and none of the mentions of Hagar (Hajar) in the six classic Sunni hadith collections describe her as Abraham's wife. She is described as his wife's maid-servant, or as a slave-girl. I'm willing to believe that later Muslims elevated her to wife, but there's no Qur'an or hadith basis for doing so. Zora 19:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

ZORA

Hello

EVEN The bible say that Hagar is the wife of Abraham {So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband "to be his wife". ]Genesis 16:3}

'So Hagar is indeed the wife of Abraham according to the bible...DO YOU HAVE OBJECT THE BIBLE?

Happy haytham (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this complete story of Hagar with her son in valley of Mecca is an Israelite or Arab folk lore. It has nothing to do with Qur'an or hadith. The only thing that is mentioned in Qur'an is that Abraham built Kabah with his son Ishmael. Both things doesn't go well, because this would mean that first Abraham left them in the desert and then came back to build the Kabah. And if Abraham was tested in such a big thing, then why not Qur'an or hadith mentioned it. If there is no problem with, someone can put on the article that it is not mentioned in Qur'an and hadith. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, there is no account of Hagar as slave of Abraham. Instead of Muslims raising the status of Hagar, why not to think the other way round, Maybe Jews changed her to a slave-girl so that Muhammad's claim could be nullified. This whole concept is also there in Gospel of Barnabas. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly, according to Islamic laws, if someone has child from a slave-girl, she becomes a wife. As Abraham was following the same religion, according to Muslims, then Ishmael still is the legitimate son of Abraham. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hagar again

Someone has again modified the article to read that Hagar was Abraham's wife. Many Muslims seem to believe that; however, Christians and Jews don't, and there is actually no support in the earliest Muslim texts for that belief. When there's a dispute, Wikipedia can't choose one side or another; we give all sides. Since there isn't ROOM in this article to discuss the wife/concubine question, let's just leave it out, OK? I tried to reword the sentence so that it takes no position on Hagar's status. Arguments re her status should go in her article. OK? Zora 19:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the article for Hagar -- it's a mess. It needs to be rewritten and retitled. Hagar (Bible) should be Hagar (Abrahamic religions). Let's take the dispute over there. Zora 20:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Zora

Yes Hagar was Abraham’s wife Genesis 16:3,and I don not care what the Christians and Jews sayor their opinions are, that if they agree between themselves on anything :+D !

Please read the Bible [So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband "to be his wife"'. ]Genesis 16:3

…So who is right you or YHWH??

:+D

Happy haytham (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Please read the Bible [So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband "to be his wife"'. ]Genesis 16:3"

"to be his wife" is a euphemism for having sexual relations. It's nice that you pick and choose only what you want in attempting to prove your point. However, the verses following Gen 16:3 say this:

Genesis 16:4-9 (NASB77)

4 And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her sight.

5 And Sarai said to Abram, "May the wrong done me be upon you. I gave my maid into your arms; but when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her sight. May the LORD judge between you and me."

6 But Abram said to Sarai, "Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her what is good in your sight." So Sarai treated her harshly, and she fled from her presence.

7 Now the angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur.

8 And he said, "Hagar, Sarai's maid, where have you come from and where are you going?" And she said, "I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai."

9 Then the angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her authority."

In those verses is Hagar ever referred to as Abram's wife? No. She's always referred to as "maid" or "Sarai's maid" or "her mistress" - even by the angel of the Lord. And notice that even Hagar refers to Sarai as her mistress. You don't see "my husband, Abram".

The hebrew for the word naming the relationship between Abraham and Hagar in 16:3 is אִשָּׁה. - the word used for "wife" through the hebrew bible - and the same term that is used in that verse to refer to the relationship between Abraham and Sarah (in the phrase, "Sarai his wife"). The maid/mistress language is about the relationship between Sarah and Hagar. The terms used in the Hebrew (and the English) keep the three relationships (Abraham-Hagar; Abraham-Sarah, and Sarah-Hagar) very clear. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, even Jewish sources see Hagar as Abraham's wife, as she is identified with Keturah, who in Genesis is called a "wife" which is discussed on Wikipedia's article on Hagar herself. That's two of the three Abrahamic Religions. Majority wins. --ShemtovKML (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Major revision

I've completely rewritten and reorganized the article -- much of which seems to have been a copyvio from Saudi websites! I have tried to make it clear which beliefs re Zamzam are Muslim beliefs, and which "facts" are more generally accepted. I also added the bit re fake Zamzam water, which I found while googling, and I hope that this will be of some use to readers. Don't BUY Zamzam water! It may be a poisonous fake! Zora 22:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I browsed this page to learn about Muslim beliefs concerning zam zam water and found this article a bit poor on the issue. A neverending list of miracles would be too much but a non-muslim like me can have interest for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.81.135.235 (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well not running dry

If the Zamzam well isn't dry, when neighboring ones are, it could be that they've dried up because pumps are diverting all the groundwater to Zamzam.

Another explanation is that the water supply is being supplemented. An article on the Saudi service that maintains the water says that they pump it up and store it in tanks. It would be so easy to eke out the water supply with a little extra water from other sources.

Just a thought. No proof. But I'd believe in chicanery before I believed in miracles. Zora 09:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm -- just thought of another way to get more water out of Zamzam -- inject water into the water table somewhere else, which would increase the amount of ground water that can be pumped out at Zamzam. That would even be legit, right? Imagine surrounding Mecca with lovely green plantations, watered by imported water. Watering the plantations would send water seeping down to the water table. Zora 19:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

for me zam zam water is holy.Stupid people who wrote about the bad terms of zam zam is a great liar.

Actually there was a test that went on and they send a person into the well to check if there where any pumps but the person could not find any no matter how much he dug...i have proof if anyone wants it...Tere naam 00:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd, can zora tell me where the water is being pumped, miliions of gallons of water is coming out and going all across the world. where is the pipeline in Saudia which is filtering sea water and making good the water table. please do not just guess because of your animosity80.78.136.115 22:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Farhan

The article explains that most of the water sold as Zamzam water is not only fake, but contaminated with arsenic. There are apparently no "millions of gallons" to be explained. Zora 23:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Academic historians

Anon, I reverted your edit softening the stance of academic historians against the pious Muslim version of the history. Historians simply do not take pious legends as fact; they want proof. I'd be willing to change the sentence if you could come up with even one historian (tenured, reputable university, holds position in a history department) who accepts the folkloric Muslim version. Zora 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

so i guess we need to accept the folkloric budhist version iquadri 15:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Iquadri, I had to delete your addition again. The fluoride business is already mentioned in the article. As for the growth of algae -- we can't state it as accepted-by-encyclopedia fact that there is no algae and that this is miraculous in the absence of some scientific confirmation. A religious magazine is not proof. That belief would be worth mentioning if it were widespread -- then it would be a notable POV. However, while I have many times seen Muslims say that Zamzam water cures disease, or sates hunger, I haven't seen that algae theory mentioned until now. There are some 300 google hits for "Zamzam algae" and 15,000 for "Zamzam disease". Most of those 300 hits seem to be copies of the same article.

I'm not trying to be difficult. It's just that I take matters of fact, and proof, very seriously. Zora 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Accepted,, by the way.. i added only once.. so dont know what u are saying about the addition again thingy... ok. .by the way.. i have to say one thing.. aside from your remarks about muhammad's wives as stray cats thingy.. i really have to compliment you on your work related to islam related articles.. initially when i read the discussion boards.. i thought its some passionate muslim contributing (your battles with striver and others related to shia and sunni povs), however i was a little surprised when i checked your profile page and found you are a budhist.. hats off too you.. but i have to ask one question out of curiousity.. how you came to write articles particularly about islam.. i mean what interested you..?? iquadri 18:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"known to Muslims as Ibrahim"

Shouldn't this be changed back to "known as Ibrahim in Arabic"? I'm not going to change it as I don't find it to be that important a matter but I will bring it up anyways. It's true that Muslims call him Ibrahim, but Arab Christians also call him Ibrahim, see the Smith Van Dyke's Arabic Bible:

فَلا يُدْعَى اسْمُكَ بَعْدُ ابْرَامَ بَلْ يَكُونُ اسْمُكَ ابْرَاهِيمَ لانِّي اجْعَلُكَ ابا لِجُمْهُورٍ مِنَ الامَمِ

(I don't know why the Arabic text won't appear properlly....but anyways)

ابْرَاهِيمَ

That's the Arabic found in this version of the Bible for Ibrahim. It coincides with the English transliteration 'Ibrahim' and not 'Abraham'. If it was being displayed properlly, one could see it better, but it can be confirmed if anyone has a copy of this bible (and plus there is a number of online Bible sites and I'm sure one of em has this translation). This matches perfectly with the Quranic use of 'Ibrahim' which can be seen here (from 2:135)

It doesn't allow me to copy-paste the Arabic but the phonetical transliteration should give an idea:

Full: 2:135 Waqaloo koonoo hoodan aw nasara tahtadoo qul bal millata ibraheema haneefan wama kana mina almushrikeena

"ibraheema"

Also, I'm going to bring up that the Hebrew name for 'Abraham' Gen 17:5 ולא־יקרא עוד את־שׁמך אברם והיה שׁמך אברהם כי אב־המון גוים נתתיך׃ where 'Abraham' is אברהם which is pronounced as 'Ib-raw-heem' or 'Ib-raw-ham' if I'm correct.

So I would assume from this that in the two Semetic languages, Abraham is 'Ibrahim', and it shouldn't be attributed to Muslims as a Muslim name. (But my Hebrew is shakey at best and I still consult a dictionary when I'm reading the books so I can't vouch a hundred percent on the second part).

HI

You must know that the name "אברהם" can be pronounced in two ways as "Abraham אַבְרָהָם "and / Or as "Ibrahim אִבְרָהִם" because The early texts had NO Vowels.

The Question is what Make you believe that the right pronunciation is Abraham NOT Ibrahim and it is written אברהם in the early texts ???

;+D

Cheers and Regards

Happy haytham (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

River?

If water spontaneously flows out of this well, doesn't that make it the source of a river? If so, why is that river not mentioned here? Michael Hardy 18:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the Saudi info, the water is pumped up. So far as I know, there are no historic records of water flowing spontaneously. According to Muslim belief, the well was "restored" by Muhammad's grandfather, who had to dig to find it. I would need to do some research to find cites, but I assume that, before pumps, the water was pulled up in buckets. Zora 19:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Brief Response and from the Bible to Zora’s resentment fallacies

Hello

The bible say that Hagar is the wife of Abraham {So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband "to be his wife". ]Genesis 16:3}

So Hagar is indeed the wife of Abraham according to the bible...DO YOU OBJECT? DO YOU REJECT Genesis 16:3?

Not Only that but also YHWH promised the following in relation to Ishmael and his descendants.....for I (YHWH) will make him ( Ishmael) into a “great nation”. (Genesis 17:20, 21:18)?

The contrasting fact that Isaac (Pbuh) was promised to be “nations” not “one nation” (Gen. 17:16) crucially means that Ishmael alone ultimately fulfils God’s first promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:2, i.e. “..I will make you (Abraham) into a "great nation"

This promise was repeated in Genesis 18:18 as “Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him”.

The Miraculous Existence and the continuity of “Well of Zamzam” with it the existence of Mecca as early as the time of Abraham (could be earlier than the 6000 years old biblical cosmos) in this hostile water scarce place, is Just one testable irrefutable evidence that prove the Miraculous Quran.

What I want from you "Zora" is in order to prove the bible for us.

Please prove that the mythical Solomon temple is TRUE FACT did exist NOT a MYTH . Because despite of archeological traces been founded of the total devastated lost city Pompeii in Italy, There is NO ONE single prove or a trace about this temple and or the so called Ark of Covenant been FOUNDED yet !!

And please Do not measure the Quran with the bible, because I do not measure the Torah by the Hindu book of Veda (despite being older than age of the biblical cosmos)

Cheers and Regards

:+D

Happy haytham (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture?

For something of such cultural significant, shouldn't there be a picture of it, or at least a diagram of it somewhere klosterdev (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Zamzam has something to do with Islam and Muslims! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.255.138 (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Second Reference

If the information from the second reference is true a reliable source should be cited instead of a fringe web-site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.209.89 (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Legality of selling pure, authentic Zam Zam water

I removed the line about illegality of selling Zam Zam water. This is because of the article here http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article72200.ece which would mention illegality. Also this article http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009083148406 expounds a bit on the subject, indirectly. I cannot find an official Saudi Ministry website which answers the question. Thus, due to ambiguity, I have opted to edit out the problematic phrase.

Islamicbookstore (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ishmael's age

"She was desperately seeking water for her infant son, but she could not find any, as Mecca is located in a hot dry valley with few sources of water. Hagar ran seven times back and forth in the scorching heat between the two hills of Safa and Marwah, looking for water. Getting thirstier by the second, the infant Ishmael scraped the land with his feet, where suddenly water sprang out."

Ishmael wasn't an infant. He was at least 14 years old when Abraham sent them away.

Genesis 16:16 (NASB77)

16 And Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to him.

Genesis 17:24-26 (NASB77)

24 Now Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

Genesis 21:4-5 (NASB77)

5 Now Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.

Genesis 21:8-12 (NASB77)

8 And the child grew and was weaned, and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned.

9 Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking.

10 Therefore she said to Abraham, "Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac."

11 And the matter distressed Abraham greatly because of his son.

12 But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named".

Another issue is that Abraham didn't take Hagar and Ishmael out to the desert. He sent them away.

Genesis 21:14 (NASB77)

14 So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave them to Hagar, putting them on her shoulder, and gave her the boy, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba.

And a third issue is the business of Ishmael (as an "infant") scraping the land with his feet and water sprang out.

Genesis 21:15-19 (NASB77)

15 And the water in the skin was used up, and she left the boy under one of the bushes.

16 Then she went and sat down opposite him, about a bowshot away, for she said, "Do not let me see the boy die." And she sat opposite him, and lifted up her voice and wept.

17 And God heard the lad crying; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, "What is the matter with you, Hagar? Do not fear, for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is.

18 "Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him by the hand; for I will make a great nation of him."

19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water; and she went and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink.

I think it's pretty clear that Ishmael wasn't an infant when Abraham sent him and Hagar away. And it was God who provided the water. Ishmael had nothing to do with it (other than crying). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.152.135 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please bring a reliable source for this claim; we don't use editors' interpretations of the biblical stories as sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 2 sources in the "traditional origin" section say "infant" or "suckling babe", so unless there are sources that say otherwise, we shouldn´t change it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ishmael seems to say that this is a diffrence between how this story is told in Bible/Islamic tradition, so we don´t need to bring that up here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It is important to note that the age of Ishmael here is told as mentioned in the Islamic sources, because this article is Islam-specific. The mention of age in any other source would have no bearing here. I think Gråbergs is also saying the same. Moughera (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Outside of Islam

The Jewish biblical commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra identifies Zamzam Well as the Well of Beerlahairoi of Genesis 16:7,14 24:62 25:11. Is this significant enough to start an "Outside of Islam" section that mentions this?ShemtovKML (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Zamzam water project and testing now 100 samples a day

There's been a major project building transits and sterilizing and removing particles. See[1] and [2]. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"Possible health risk" gives undue weight to the matter of health risk

When something is considered good for centuries and then someone says its bad, the term used is 'claimed'. There are multiple articles published on reputed journal saying that the water is good. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653511011787, article published on chemosphere. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10942912.2012.660721 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13201-017-0549-x and many more.

In such a condition, statement of a two not scientific journal source can not be given much weight. Hence the title should be changed to "Claim of health risk" Touhid3.1416 (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Usage of BC/BCE

BC "Before Christ" is a dating term with predominantly "Christian" connotations, while the article is strictly about another, entirely different religious interest, i.e. Islam. I suggest that the dating across not only this but all the Islamic articles are to be Hijri (Hj.) or Before Hijra (BH.) and then BCE/CE added in braces like; Umayyad Mosque was constructed circa 86-96 Hj. (705–715 CE).

I am aware that is going to be quite a tedious and time consuming task and may also be somewhat confusing for someone reading the article for the first time, but in the longer run it will add a new aspect to the relevant articles and content which will not only present a non-christian and neutral tone of the content but also add a the "academic touch" as well, as the BCE and CE have become more academically adopted. Please see following for a more detailed explanation; these sources can be found here (Anno_Domini#CE_and_BCE) as well

1. Robinson, B.A. (20 April 2009). "Justification of the use of "CE" & "BCE" to identify dates. Trends". ReligiousTolerance.org.
2. Safire, William (17 August 1997). "On Language: B.C./A.D. or B.C.E./C.E.?". The New York Times Magazine.
3. Cunningham, Philip A., ed. (2004). Pondering the Passion : what's at stake for Christians and Jews?. Lanham, Md. [u.a.]: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 193. ISBN 978-0742532182.

Moughera (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moughera: have you read WP:ERA? I agree with you, but we have to follow the guideline and it can only be done individually for articles. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, thank you for mentioning the WP:ERA, I wasn't aware of this. But now that I've read it and also the (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_existing_styles), I don't see a reason not to change the BC to BCE, since both of these mention that the era can be changed according to the context and relevancy. Moughera (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moughera: no, that's not what it says. It can be done through consensus on this talk page. You could for instance start an WP:RfC. I'm reverting you until that's done. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, I'm staying from changing this for the time being, but can you please point out where on the two policy pages you mentioned it says that the change requires consensus? Both policy pages mention two criteria i.e. a) relevancy b) context, both are satisfied in this instance. Thank you Moughera (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I understand where you're coming from, but Common Era is the established dating system for the western world and reducing the primacy of this risks detracting from Wikipedia's overall coherence - particularly as this would be a precedent for the use of other variant dating systems in their respective topics. We use the common western style of reckoning age also for similar reasons, although in many asian cultures a person is viewed as year older after new year. It's simply a question of consistency. VeritasVox (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So, is there at least consensus for changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE?

Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Firejuggler86: Not yet. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 08:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Since this is an explicitly non-Christian article, it would make sense to change BC/AD to BCE/CE. I support this. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 08:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think having a uniform calender is a high value and thus we shouldn't switch to a non-standard calendar. BCE/CE would help with removing the religious connotation so I support using it here. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Just adding to this to say that I, of course, support BCE/CE as well - we should definitely be trying to 'de-christianise' our terminology for the sake of fairness - frankly, it should be a botted autocorrect option for dates. VeritasVox (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I count three votes in favour and two against, so I will be changing the calendar from BC/AD to BCE/CE in next week. I am staying from changing for another week, so if there are any other who want to add on to the discussion, they can. Moughera (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Issues with this page

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

I have found the "Zamzam well" article to have a few issues.

Here are the issues:

1. Alleged Therapeutic properties

This whole section is factually incorrect. According to the US National Library of Medicine, Zamzam water:

• exerts a wide range of therapeutic and pharmacological properties e.g. antioxidant, antitumor, anxiolytic and antidepressant agents.
• Zamzam water contains zinc and other antioxidant minerals that protect against arsenic toxicity.
• Zamzam water is rich in strontium that removes arsenic from aqueous media.

Other research papers also are in favor of the fact that Zamzam is beneficial. "Therapeutic properties" are beneficial in some way. Zamzam falls under that category.

2. Possible Health risks and concerns about Zamzam water (Section needs to be redone):

"The British Food Standards Agency has in the past issued warnings about water claiming to be from the Zamzam Well containing dangerous levels of arsenic."

The BBC report has similar claims and concerns, but the water used in both studies are most likely of non-zamzam origin.

The Saudi government has made it very clear that there is no company licensed to transport or sell zamzam water outside of the country of Saudi Arabia. It is simply NOT Zamzam as no one could get enough of it to sell it in such quantities anywhere internationally.

Research backs up the claims made here. According to research conducted into the safety of Zamzam water, the US National Library of Medicine, Saudi Geological Survey (SGS), and the French Group Laboratories of CARSO-LSEHL (licensed by the French Ministry of Health) found that the level of arsenic in Zamzam water taken at its source is much lower than the maximum amount permitted by the World Health Organization. The US National Library of Medicine pointed out that there are no acute or chronic arsenic or nitrate toxicity reports in Makkah and Al-Madinah or any Saudi city, further proving the BBC report to be false (according to them). It was concluded by them that the BBC report was either biased or incorrect.

As a result of the misinformation on Wikipedia, users have been reported on social media platforms such as Quora and Reddit for misinformation. This single page is causing arguments among non-Muslims and Muslims all over social media. I request that the edits be initiated soon. Also, the edits I set forward can be edited to an extent to better fit the article, as long as the message is spread in some way. Thanks.

Xpërt3 (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The proposed changes seem to be accurate, and I think you should go ahead with them. JohnThompson8184 (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I have decided to not go ahead with the changes, they seem to use low-grade journals for citation and a few words were biased. Xpërt3 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

New section "Benefits"

Dear Wikipedian editors,

The article seems to be in decent form as of now. I would like to propose an edit that may lead to increased edit wars if not brought to light. The edit is about Zamzam water benefits. Here is the exact text that I have formulated:

---

Benefits: According to studies conducted by the US National Library of Medicine, Zamzam water has been found to be beneficial for consumption. Zamzam water was found to have vasodilatation, antithrombotic, and immunoregulatory effects. In addition, Zamzam water is reported to exert a wide range of therapeutic and pharmacological properties (e.g. antioxidant, antitumor, anxiolytic, and antidepressant agents).

---

References

Feel free to make any propositions below on what I should change. I know it is not perfect. If you have any further questions about the benefits of Zamzam water, please contact me on my talk page or feel free to comment below. Xpërt3 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

No reliable source is cited. A WP:MEDRS source would be required for any claim of "benefit". Alexbrn (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:, some edit problems occurred and the sources did not show up. I apologize. The claim is from a study conducted by researchers from the Middle East. The study was originally published in the American Journal of Blood Research but showed up on the United States Library of Medicine website. The journal/research is peer-reviewed, so I believe it is accurate. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Xpërt3 (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A primary source in a low-quality journal. Not reliable for biomedical claims. Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the clarification. Xpërt3 (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus for Zamzam Well Changes

Dear Wikipedia Contributors,

I will need to reach consensus for my version of my article, after discussions with another person. Here are the proposed changes:

Adding a new section within the "BBC Allegation" section:

---

Responses: Saudi officials have rejected BBC's claim and have stated that the water is suitable for human consumption. An official from the Saudi Arabian embassy in London has stated: "Zam Zam water from the Zam Zam well in the Holy City of Makkah, Saudi Arabia, is not contaminated and is fit for human consumption and genuine Zam Zam water does not contain arsenic."

Furthermore, the CARSO-LSEHL Group Laboratories in Lyon, which is approved by the French Ministry of Health to conduct drinking water research, discovered that the level of arsenic in Zamzam water taken at its source is far lower than the maximum amount allowed by the World Health Organization.

The president of the Saudi Geological Survey (SGS), Zuhair Nawab, has stated that the Zamzam Well is tested on a daily basis, in a process involving the taking of three samples from the well, and that these samples are examined in the King Abdullah Zamzam Water Distribution Center in Mecca, which is equipped with advanced facilities. A credible source from the Presidency of the Two Holy Mosques Affairs has also stated that Zamzam water is protected by stainless steel pipes that run to cooling stations and then to the Grand Mosque.

The Council of British Hajjis later declared that drinking Zamzam water was safe, contradicting the BBC report. The council noted that the Government of Saudi Arabia does not allow the export of Zamzam water for resale. They also stated that it was unknown whether the water being sold in the UK was genuine and that people should not buy it and should report the sellers to the Trading Standards if they saw it for sale.

According to Fahd Turkistani, advisor to the General Authority of Meteorology and Environmental Protection, the BBC article focused on bottled water supplied by individuals rather than the General Presidency of Haramain. He added that the water provided by the presidency is closely monitored and that ultraviolet rays are used to destroy harmful bacteria. Turkistani has also stated that the Zamzam water pollution may have been caused by unsterilized containers used by illegal workers selling Zamzam water at Makkah gates. The Saudi government has outlawed such illegal Zamzam water sales.

A Saudi resident dismissed the accusation of contamination within Zamzam water, stating that, “My family and I have been drinking Zamzam for many years. None of us have suffered any disease as a result of drinking it. If the BBC report was true, Makkans would have suffered many diseases, including cancer, because most of them drink Zamzam.”

References

---

Besides the proposition, can someone explain to me why every edit done on this particular article requires consensus? I don't really see any form of consensus in other articles that I edit, so I'm confused. Thanks for understanding. Xpërt3 (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that you need to read WP:CONSENSUS again. Also note that in spite of what you said up there, +++ points up ^^^^, it isn't your article. Thanks for understanding! -Roxy . wooF 13:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, what does this abreviation "+++ points up ^^^^" mean? I don't understand these abbreviations used. And also, isn't consensus used for someone who is in disagreement with someone else? I assume its Jonathan A Jones who is in disagreement. Jonathan, why do disagree with me? All I did was extract information from the same sources used in the article. Xpërt3 (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The people who principally disagree with you are Alexbrn and Brunton. I just agree with them: they have made their arguments absolutely clear in their edit summaries but you just bludgeon on insisting on your own version even when it's been clearly explained why it's unsuitable. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. I'm referring to the French Ministry of Health information, not the previous information about the "unreliable" studies. I spoke to one of them about it, and the issue is sorted out.

"Furthermore, the CARSO-LSEHL Group Laboratories in Lyon, which is approved by the French Ministry of Health to conduct drinking water research, discovered that the level of arsenic in Zamzam water taken at its source is far lower than the maximum amount allowed by the World Health Organization."

This was deleted by someone, and I wanted to bring it back. So why is information unreliable? Xpërt3 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

References

That statement is not supported by the source given. See this edit [3]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The French labratory edit is supported by the source given. It is below the second picture of the BBC article. The SGS claim was later fixed. Xpërt3 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

And where precisely does it say that "the level of arsenic in Zamzam water taken at its source is far lower than the maximum amount allowed by the World Health Organization"? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not type or analyze this claim in detail. Apart from a new word used ("far" is the new word, the previous word used was "much"), there is no difference. Once again, I am in no way responsible for that claim. Xpërt3 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

That wording is the wording you were trying to edit war back into the article. What the source actually says is "According to drinking water standards in France and based on the analysis conducted on the samples of Zamzam water, this water is fit for human consumption." If you can't even be clear about the changes you are trying to make then it is not surprising that your efforts are proving unsuccessful. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

So why did the editor use this wording instead to cover up the changes "Saudi embassy response is already covered 3 paragraphs further up the page, using same sources". This editor deleted the France Ministry of Health information without reason, so of course I will try reverting it back. That's the main issue. The factual errors can be easily corrected. Xpërt3 (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's an alternative:

"The water was tested and evaluated in March 2011 by the CARSO-LSEHL Group Laboratories in Lyon, which is licensed by the French Ministry of Health to test drinking water. The March report said: 'According to drinking water standards in France and based on the analysis conducted on the samples of Zamzam water, this water is fit for human consumption."'

Xpërt3 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

there is no “France Ministry of Health information”, any more than there was a "US ZamZam Study" or a team of “researchers from the US National Library of Medicine”. It’s just that for some reason the water was tested in France, so naturally the lab was governed by French regulation. If this is giving people the impression that the French government was somehow involved, we should not be including this unnecessary detail in the article. The wording suggested by Jonathan A Jones above is a perfectly adequate summary of the source for the purposes of this article. Brunton (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It's still far more reliable to keep the original wording, in my opinion. I think we should go with the alternative version I gave above, but if you would like to summarize it differently, you are absolutely welcome to do so. Xpërt3 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I am yet to see any case for making any changes at all. If you think something is actually wrong with the current text then identify it, and if people agree then we can agree a wording. But your suggestions so far have been either incoherent or demonstrably wrong or both. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The point is that the deleted information should've never been deleted. If you really don't want to put that information, then I guess we have to put something new. We could put something like this:

A Saudi resident dismissed the accusation of contamination within Zamzam water, stating that, “My family and I have been drinking Zamzam for many years. None of us have suffered any disease as a result of drinking it. If the BBC report was true, Makkans would have suffered many diseases, including cancer, because most of them drink Zamzam.”

Xpërt3 (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

That adds nothing to the article. We already have statements from the Saudi ambassador, the Saudi Geological Survey and the Presidency of the Two Holy Mosques Affairs saying that the water is fit for human consumption. We don’t need this unnamed resident’s opinion. Brunton (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Brunton, I think readers should be able to view a Saudi resident's perspective on zamzam to get a sense of how the Saudi resident feels about it. I think its an important detail to add to the article. Xpërt3 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We do reliable sources, not a stranger on the internet's perspective. -Roxy . wooF 20:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's just an opinion, and readers will know. What do you define as a reliable source then? How come there are opinions in muliple articles on Wikipedia then, including ones I have edited? Xpërt3 (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources are defined by Policy and Guidelines, in this case WP:RS, and for medical claims, WP:MEDRS. -Roxy . wooF 20:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The main point I'm trying to push is that the addition of a Saudi resident's opinion is harmless. I don't see any issue with it. Xpërt3 (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can any Arabic speaker add IPA pronunciation in the lead? ChandlerMinh (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Zamzam water used to cure illness

Zamzam water has a long history of use as a curative in the Muslim world. I am surprised that is not mentioned here. Thriley (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Namibian 105.232.252.130 (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)