Hindu man refuses Zomato takeaway over 'Muslim driver' !!!

[rkt.india]

14 hours ago, Mariyam said:

How do you know that the amount was refunded?

 

All they have said is that would look into it. Maybe if they found that he placed the order inspite of there being no halal food tag, they would just tell him that.

it was.

[Mariyam]

17 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

it was.

The tweet that @Singh bling shared doesn't indicate anything of the sort. 

It would suit a certain narrative though.

[Mariyam]

42 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Double standards galore. Switch to Ola.

 

 

 

I went through the article and the tweet on Lord Hanuman. The complainant comes across as a complete bigot/nutcase. There is no way that any cab aggregator is not going to charge her for that ride if she cancels the last minute on the basis of this immensely bigoted (and hurtful) viewpoint. 

But why do you exhort people to switch to Ola? Do you know if Uber entertained her request? Unlike Zomato, Uber could have chosen to not sound sanctimonious by just ignoring her and also charging her a full fee. None of that is mentioned in that series of tweets. 

 

 

[Mariyam]

1 minute ago, Shaz1 said:

What the heck is Zomato? Combination of Zoo and Tomato?

Nope. Its High Latin. Comes from Zombie and Gelato.

[Singh bling]

14 hours ago, Mariyam said:

How do you know that the amount was refunded?

 

All they have said is that would look into it. Maybe if they found that he placed the order inspite of there being no halal food tag, they would just tell him that.

Zomato and Swiggy do not mention whether meat is halal or non halal. They should had told the man that it is not their duty to verify whether it is halal or not.

[coffee_rules]

45 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

I went through the article and the tweet on Lord Hanuman. The complainant comes across as a complete bigot/nutcase. There is no way that any cab aggregator is not going to charge her for that ride if she cancels the last minute on the basis of this immensely bigoted (and hurtful) viewpoint. 

But why do you exhort people to switch to Ola? Do you know if Uber entertained her request? Unlike Zomato, Uber could have chosen to not sound sanctimonious by just ignoring her and also charging her a full fee. None of that is mentioned in that series of tweets. 

 

 

The point is Uber could have been silent in this case as well. They chose to tweet in favor of the delivery boy, while they were silent. when it came to the issue of that crazy lady.

[Stradlater]

Zomato is crap anyway. I remember throwing up badly immediately after eating their shahi paneer once. 

Besides,  their incessant advertising on YouTube right before every single video I used to watch had already pissed me to no end. 

 

So yeah. * Zomato. 

[sandeep]

5 hours ago, beetle said:

 

Rss gundas have been flaunting Ram with his bow and arrow too..

 

Should that make Ram and Hanuman off limits for normal hindus.

 

Don't try to guilt trip normal people for the fault of gundas and hooligans.

 

 

I'm not trying to 'guilt trip' anybody - nor mark anything as "off limits".  But as a hindu, I am offended by those who would use the symbols of my faith, to represent their ignorant bigotry.  That's my point. 

 

How did you feel when you found out that some random moron in Rajasthan attacked a muslim man with an axe, and then set him on fire, and filmed it?  And claimed he did it for hinduism? While I obviously wouldn't use such a random incident to badmouth all hindus, I would definitely reject criminals like him claiming to represent my faith.   So many ICFers make a big stink about muslims "not doing enough" to denounce terrorism that is carried out in the name of Islam.  Islamofascism etc etc.  And to be sure, there are some in the Islamic community who do silently support atrocities - but I believe most do not. 

 

In the same way, 'normal' hindus ought to speak up against actions and words of bigotry and prejudice - otherwise it slowly becomes "normalized".  

 

I live in America - I am seeing first-hand how prejudice can become more and more empowered if the so-called silent majority stays silent. 

[sandeep]

4 hours ago, G_B_ said:

Regardless. Even if an rss guy is an uber driver and has this symbol you cannot cancel your ride without charge due to this.

 

I can agree with you in the Uber example with the sticker. 

 

4 hours ago, G_B_ said:

Secondly as long as no laws are broken people are free to do as they do fit. This not in my name etc is just your point of view.

Do you know how far-reaching and all-encompassing the laws are when it comes to "disturbing communal peace" in India?  If you want to claim a libertarian point of view, best to leave the "laws" out of the debate. 

 

And again, I am inclined to share your opinion on the "as long as no laws are broken" stand-point.  But there is such a thing as "social norms".  And if you accept blatantly prejudicial actions and soft bigotry, it can lead to extremely unwanted consequences in society.  For instance - the USA made slavery illegal in 1865, but it wasn't until 1965 that institutionalized discrimination against non-whites in the US was legislated out.  And it took decades after that to address the social norms - and many would point out that it remains a problem till today. 

 

I believe you are a resident of the UK are you not?  You cannot advocate equal rights for all, in your personal context, and then argue to enable and empower blatant discrimination when it doesn't impact you.  I mean, you can, but it would be sheer hypocrisy.

 

[sandeep]

17 hours ago, Mariyam said:

 

Its the restaurants who choose how they wished to be tagged. For instance, the halal food tag is on the insistence of the eatery. There is a statutory body that certifies if an establishment is serving halal meat and then the FSSAI also have to give their set of clearances.

 

In the case of jhatka, does a certifying body exist? How can Zomato comply if such a body doesn't exist?

What is "jhatka"?

[Alam_dar]

4 hours ago, sandeep said:

I live in America - I am seeing first-hand how prejudice can become more and more empowered if the so-called silent majority stays silent. 

 

4 hours ago, sandeep said:

And again, I am inclined to share your opinion on the "as long as no laws are broken" stand-point.  But there is such a thing as "social norms".  And if you accept blatantly prejudicial actions and soft bigotry, it can lead to extremely unwanted consequences in society.  For instance - the USA made slavery illegal in 1865, but it wasn't until 1965 that institutionalized discrimination against non-whites in the US was legislated out.  And it took decades after that to address the social norms - and many would point out that it remains a problem till today. 

 

I highly appreciate these posts. Thanks for pointing out these facts. 

[nikred]

Zomato and Swiggy do not mention whether meat is halal or non halal. They should had told the man that it is not their duty to verify whether it is halal or not.

Just checked zomato, they have tags for halal food, but with a disclaimer. "This restaurant servers halal to the best of our knowledge, you are still advised to call to the restaurant and confirm."

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

[Alam_dar]

6 hours ago, sandeep said:

What is "jhatka"?

Jhatka vs Halal:

 

Jhatka is a way of slaughter in which whole neck of an animal is cut off with an axe. Animal brain comes to death with in 3-5 seconds (according to modern scientific research), after which animal feels no pain. While body also comes to death immediately while cutting spinal cord of neck causes immediate heart attack to the animals. Here you could see Jhatka slaughter in action. 

Video removed.

 

 

Halal is known as Islamic way of slaughtering (although not correct fully  while Islam took it from Jews, who ultimately took it from hunters)

In Halal slaughter the wind pipe, food-tract (oesophagus) and 2 jugular veins of both sides are cut but leaving the spinal cord intact.

Jugular veins are cut in order to stop the supply of blood to the brain, which in 3 to 5 seconds causes the brain death (i.e. no pain more according to the modern scientific studies), but the blood in body keeps on circulating while no heart attack takes place. This method brings out most of the blood out of the body. If blood remains in dead body of animal, then the meat does not taste good, while blood goes rancid quickly and carries more bacteria and diseases (according to modern scientific studies).

 

But Islam is not the one which introduced Halal way of slaughter. It was the way in which Pre-Islamic pagan Arabs and Arab Jews used to slaughter the animals. 

Among Jews, it is known as Koshar slaughter. 

Before Jews, it was the preferred way of slaughtering for the hunters, who had to chase for miles for hunt. They were unable to carry big heavy axes with them to perform any Jhatka. They normally had only small knives with them, and thus this way of cutting jugular veins was preferred way of killing for them as compared to cutting whole neck off with an axe. 

 

In India, Sikhs are not allowed to eat the Halal slaughter of Muslims, while they take the name of Allah while slaughtering. Sikhs Gru Nanak ordered them to have only Jhatka meat. While Muslims don't eat Jhatka meat. Hindus are allowed neither to eat Jhatka nor Halal meat, but those Hindus who eat meat, they eat both Jhatka and Halal. 

 

The most Humane way of slaughtering:

It is neither Halal, nor Jhatka. 

But in the most humane way of slaughter, you cut only the jugular veins of both sides with a sharp knife, bringing the brain death within 3-5 seconds (while in Halal method, you also cut the wind pipe and food tract, bringing much more pain to an animal). 

Here it is:video removed.

Edit:Please don't post video of any kind of killing .

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by beetle

[Singh bling]

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

In India, Sikhs are not allowed to eat the Halal slaughter of Muslims, while they take the name of Allah while slaughtering. Sikhs Gru Nanak ordered them to have only Jhatka meat. While Muslims don't eat Jhatka meat. Hindus are allowed neither to eat Jhatka nor Halal meat, but those Hindus who eat meat, they eat both Jhatka and Halal. 

It was Guru Gobind Singh that ordered jhatka. And jhatka predates Sikhism. It is an ancient hindu way of slaughter. Most jhatka butchers are lower caste hindu's.

 

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

The most Humane way of slaughtering:

It is neither Halal, nor Jhatka. 

But in the most humane way of slaughter, you cut only the jugular veins of both sides with a sharp knife, bringing the brain death within 3-5 seconds (while in Halal method, you also cut the wind pipe and food tract, bringing much more pain to an animal). 

I guess both veins are automatically cut in jhatka. Anyway bolt stunning is also humane

[Singh bling]

Why Ashok becomes Ahmad at Delhi's goat market ahead of Eid

https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/why-ashok-becomes-ahmad-at-delhis-goat-market-ahead-of-eid/steady-sales/slideshow/65501859.cms

 

 

 

[beetle]

7 hours ago, sandeep said:

I'm not trying to 'guilt trip' anybody - nor mark anything as "off limits".  But as a hindu, I am offended by those who would use the symbols of my faith, to represent their ignorant bigotry.  That's my point. 

 

How did you feel when you found out that some random moron in Rajasthan attacked a muslim man with an axe, and then set him on fire, and filmed it?  And claimed he did it for hinduism? While I obviously wouldn't use such a random incident to badmouth all hindus, I would definitely reject criminals like him claiming to represent my faith.   So many ICFers make a big stink about muslims "not doing enough" to denounce terrorism that is carried out in the name of Islam.  Islamofascism etc etc.  And to be sure, there are some in the Islamic community who do silently support atrocities - but I believe most do not. 

 

In the same way, 'normal' hindus ought to speak up against actions and words of bigotry and prejudice - otherwise it slowly becomes "normalized".  

 

I live in America - I am seeing first-hand how prejudice can become more and more empowered if the so-called silent majority stays silent. 

Wth ..you are using an example of a murder .

Which hindu sided with that killer.

He is in jail and will get the punishment he deserves.

Do you say such things to your muslim friends when children ,women and men are slaugtered in the name of their religion?

 

Why do you have to use extreme examples?

 

Most hindus are uncomfortable with gundas doing gundagardi in the name of religion .

Last year we saw kawariyas doing gundagardi in 2-3 places and it was widely criticised by the media and people and this year there was not a single incident. They have turned kawaryatra into a commercial  nonsense but there was no violence or gundagardi.

 

Most of the overt hindu expression you see these days and the tolerance of people to it is because of the extreme appeasement of the foul element from the muslim communities in the last few years by the state govts and the media. 

 

I wouldn't even call it muslim appeasement because I don't think it benefitted the entire community .

It was the appeasement of the criminal element which has rattled the average hindu .

 

The way the media reports crimes by the different communities, the way the police responded to crimes by different communities in places like West Bengal and Delhi ,the proposal to bring a law  that would make hindus and muslims unequal in the eyes of law...where the onus of prove innocence is on hindus....something like the atrocities against sc st act.

 

All these together have made the average hindu turn a blind eye to the rss type guys. The feeling is that these gundas are needed to keep their gundas away.

 

It is one thing to sit in America and talk but another to live in these places and have to deal with the problem.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by beetle

[Alam_dar]

46 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

It was Guru Gobind Singh that ordered jhatka. And jhatka predates Sikhism. It is an ancient hindu way of slaughter. Most jhatka butchers are lower caste hindu's.

Thanks for correcting about Guru Gobind.

Although Jhatka predates Sikhism, but it seems that Guru Gobind had to give this order to avoid Halal, while contrary to Hindus, Sikhs were allowed to consume the meat. 

Personally, I am also uncomfortable with this part of Halal slaughtering where name of Allah is taken before slaughtering. I want halal type slaughter (i.e. No Jhatka), but without the name of Allah. 

 

46 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

I guess both veins are automatically cut in jhatka. Anyway bolt stunning is also humane

Either Jhatka or Halal, but the pain increases while not only jugular veins are cut, but also the wind pipe and food tract and other arteries have also been cut. With cutting of spinal cord, the pain increases even more. While cutting only the jugular veins with very sharp knife has the same effect on brain death, but least painful procedure. 

 

Off course, the modern bolt stunning method is the best and no old traditional way of slaughtering could beat it. But I was talking about the wild life, or slaughtering of chickens at home.

 

This is my dream to live in half wild, away from big cities, in a small farm house with hens and sheep and cats and dogs. 

 

[Alam_dar]

50 minutes ago, beetle said:

Wth ..you are using an example of a murder .

Which hindu sided with that killer.

He is in jail and will get the punishment he deserves.

This does not answer this question why this incident happened? Or why so many similar incidents are happening today, where actually murders are sided by the saffron brigade in one way or the other, where police is playing on behalf of the murderers. 

Such incidents never happened in the past. 

Such hatred has never been seen in the past. 

 

50 minutes ago, beetle said:

Do you say such things to your muslim friends when children ,women and men are slaugtered in the name of their religion?

Off course. 

And if anyone does not condemn such Muslim slaughtering, then he is a sinner and criminal. 

50 minutes ago, beetle said:

Why do you have to use extreme examples?

While these extreme example were absent in the past. 

50 minutes ago, beetle said:

the proposal to bring a law  that would make hindus and muslims unequal in the eyes of law...where the onus of prove innocence is on hindus....something like the atrocities against sc st act.

Could you please tell me more about these laws which were putting the onus of innocence upon the Hindus? 

[beetle]

@Alam_dar the post is meant for sandeep.

[Alam_dar]

27 minutes ago, beetle said:

@Alam_dar the post is meant for sandeep.

Ok. I quit. 

But I am still personally interested in reading about those laws which favoured Muslims against the Hindus. If you could provide some information about these laws, then I will be grateful.