When Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion back in 2006, he became an instant atheist hero. Since then, however his star has fallen. He made some impolitic remarks that offended feminists. The reaction was predictable.
Atheists couldn't get enough of him so long as he was savaging Christianity. But when he shifted to Islam, many of his former fans began to turn on him:
All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.
I thought about comparing the numbers of Nobel Prizes won by Jews (more than 120) and Muslims (ten if you count Peace Prizes, half that if you don’t). This astonishing discrepancy is rendered the more dramatic when you consider the small size of the world’s Jewish population.
It's understandable that Muslims would take umbrage at these slighting comments. But you have the spectacle of atheists accusing him of bigotry and racism. Disowning their standard-bearer. Why?
He attacks Islam for the same reason he attacks Christianity. He's a militant atheist. He opposes religion in general. He's just being consistent. What did they expect?
Some chide him for failing to distinguish between Muslims and Islam, but they weren't bothered when he lumped Christians and Christianity together.
This exposes the fact that for many, atheism is just a social fashion statement. Liberals treat Muslims as a protected class, like other "minority" groups. Therefore, you have this blatant double standard. Everything liberals find objectionable in Christianity they ought to find twice as objectionable in Islam–both in what it teaches about women and homosexuals, as well as what it actually does to women and homosexuals. Yet we so often see liberals defending Muslims.
Incidentally, his invidious comparison between Jewish Nobel Laureates and Muslim Nobel Laureates is awkward inasmuch as some Jewish scientists are observant Jews. So that makes it harder for him to drive a wedge between religion and science.