Top Menu

Boston Marathon Hate Crimes Fall Out Begins


As media punditry speculated and regaled in the rhetoric of assigning and implying Muslim blame for the Boston Marathon bombings by perpetuating insinuations about: the ‘Saudi suspect,’ the ‘dark skinned’ foreigner and the Muslim terrorist angle we had our first hate crimes.

A Bangladeshi-American man named Abdullah Faruque was attacked as he left an Applebee’s restaurant on Monday night. (the article in the International Business Times strangely assumes that if Faruque had not been Arab the attackers would have been dissuaded from attacking him.):

In an incident that echoes the 9/11 backlash in New York City, a Bangladeshi man was assaulted after the Boston Marathon bombings by four men in the Bronx on the mistaken assumption that he was an Arab.

The New York Post reported that 30-year-old Abdullah Faruque, who was born in Bangladesh but grew up in the Bronx, was having dinner at a Bronx restaurant Monday night when three or four Hispanic men apparently wanted revenge for the Boston Marathon bombings earlier in the day (presumably they had already ascertained that the Boston blasts were perpetrated by Arabs or Muslims).

The paper noted that the four men viciously beat Faruque while shouting  “f–king Arab” at the Bengali man as he stepped out of the Applebee’s restaurant on Exterior Avenue in Melrose for a smoke.

“One of the guys asked if I was Arab,” Faruque told the Post. “I just shook my head, said like, ‘Yeah, whatever.’ I didn’t even know that  Boston happened because I had a busy day.”

As Faruque, a network engineer, turned to return to his meal, one of the other men said: “Yeah, he’s a f–king Arab,” leading to a brutal pummeling that dislocated Faruque’s left shoulder and left him semiconscious.

“Before I could grab the door, they started swinging at me,” Faruque.

“I’ve been jumped before. If you can’t win, you back up, you try to protect yourself.”

Only after he returned home and learned of the Boston tragedy from the TV news did Faruque understand.

“I saw the news, and then it hits me: That’s why I got jumped,” he said.

The New York Police Department is probing the beating as a hate crime.

Palestinian Heba Abolaban was attacked in Malden, Massachusetts as she walked with a friend and their children:

A Palestinian woman said she was assaulted and aggressively harassed while walking with her infant daughter and friend near Malden Center late Wednesday morning, in an apparent hate crime motivated by Monday’s attack at the Boston Marathon.

Malden resident Heba Abolaban said she and her friend, both wearing hijabs, were walking with their children on Commercial Street when a man forcefully punched her left shoulder and began shouting at them.

“He was screaming ‘F___ you Muslims! You are terrorists! I hate you! You are involved in the Boston explosions! F___ you!’” Abolaban remembered. “Oh my lord, I was extremely shocked.”

She said the man – described as a white male in his thirties wearing dark sunglasses – kept shouting and walking toward her as she backed away.

“I did not say anything to him,” she said. “Not even that we aren’t terrorists…he was so aggressive.”

After about two minutes, Abolaban said the man continued his brisk walk toward Malden Center. Shaken, Abolaban called her husband in tears, and then 911.

“The police came and were so kind and helpful,” she said, though no suspects were arrested in the incident.

, , , , , , , , ,

  • Sarka

    I don’t know what 1DrM has against “made-up terms”. Language is constantly evolving to fit new realities and debates. Socialism, conservatism, fascism, neo-conservatism, orientalism, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, nationalism etc etc etc…are all “made-up words”….God didn’t create them all at the beginning of time! Nor do they denote realities that were always there (like chemical elements we haven’t noticed yet) before someone named them.

    Islamism is the overall term people have come to use to denote the modern political ideologies espoused by a range of people, movements and parties that want the social, legal and political order to be based on (their conception of) Islam. .

  • Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance

    You seem as qualified as Deacon Rev Bob Spencer, I would just go for it if I was you .
    What do you define as “Islamism”?
    Sir David

  • Géji

    “I’m not a politician or a famous blog person. So before I offer any definitions of Islamism”

    You can never offer ‘a’ proper definition of ‘Islamism’, unless of course you’re willing to try and accept the resulting militarism of eurocentrism, americanism at play.

  • “The various sites, that I have seen, which are showing what they call “True Islam” do NOT call for violence against Muslims or anyone at all.”

    Of course they don’t, or at least not openly; quite frankly, they can’t afford to. If they were to say that abuse towards Muslims is OK, then it easily allows for their opponents to roll their eyes and dismiss them (and rightfully so). But let’s not pretend they don’t attract people who frequently do wish to physically harm Muslims – go to any site like Jihad Watch, Atlas Shrugged and look through the comments section for any given article or news entry. Geller, Spencer, et al make weak protests to the contrary, but if they can claim Muslims hold collective responsibility for everything one of them does wrong, then so, too, should they man up and moderate their sites better. Want to convince people you’re not calling for twin nuclear sunrises in Mecca and Medina? Tell your people to stop venting their psychopathic fantasies in and polluting the discussion. It amazes me that, for a group that seems to collectively believe when the Muslim community doesn’t respond to terrorist attacks and condemn them, that “silence is assent” – something directly applicable when I see jeering calls for the U.S. to “carpet bomb sand niggers into oblivion” (I’ve seen enough that while this is not a direct quote, it’s atypical) by their adoring fans.

    It’s also not necessarily what they say, but how they say it. Many of them make the claim that Islam is evil, but Muslims themselves aren’t, necessarily. If you inundate me with article after article claiming things like Muslims are required to murder you, lie to you, take away your rights (specifically for women) and then post nothing but negative news from parts of the world that happen to be Muslim, what conclusion would the average person reach? Probably that Muslims themselves are evil, too, and that anything that harms them in some fashion is, while not necessarily good, is at least justifiable, given how they’re all apparently ticking time bombs, itching at the first chance to destroy Western civilization.

    It’s a similar tactic to what sites like American Renaissance do. They don’t *hate*, for example, black people, it’s just all black people are inferior (right down to the genetic level!) and commit a hell of a lot of crime because they can’t help themselves. Jared Taylor at American Renaissance just wants white folks to be able gate themselves off from the world and not have to interact with any non-whites ever. Article after article is dedicated to “exposing the truth that the mainstream media doesn’t want you to know about IQ and crime rates” and ‘racial realists’ engage in masturbatory circle jerks, proclaiming how much the average white person has drunk the liberal Kool-Aid and their revolution is coming any day now (yes, siree) to stop the genocide of the white race.

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    Religion of Peace is a site that consistently skews news reports to present a preset conclusion that Islam is inherently and uniquely violent. It’s claims of objectivity are vacuous and the lad who runs the site has himself admitted in response to his article that their method is “unscientific.”

Powered by Loon Watchers