Richard Dawkins attacks Muslim bigots, not just Christian ones. If only his enemies were as brave.
But let me try to be fair. Dawkins has also tweeted against all Muslims — not just sexist god-botherers at University College London. I accept that generalising about Muslims can incite racism. It is all very well atheists saying that religion is not the same as race, because you are free to decide what god if any you believe in, but cannot choose your ethnicity. But try telling that to the persecuted Christians, Shia and Sunni of the Middle East. Their religious persecution is no different from racial persecution. I would go further and concede that Dawkins’s critics had other arguments that weren’t wholly asinine, were it not for a telling detail. They never stick their necks out and defend real liberal Muslims and ex-Muslims who are being persecuted in Britain right now.
They stay silent because they are frightened of breaking with the crowd, of the faint threat of Islamist retaliation, and of absurd accusations of racism. Journalists want the easy life. They want targets who cannot hurt them. Dawkins has never hurt a fly, so he’s all right. Looked at in a certain light, however, the enemies of Nahla Mahmoud might not be.
--snip--
One day there will be a reckoning. One day, thousands who have suffered genital mutilation, religious threats and forced marriages will turn to the intellectual and political establishments of our day and ask why they did not protect them. The pathetic and discreditable reply can only be: ‘We were too busy fighting Richard Dawkins to offer you any support at all.’
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9000431/forget-about-richard-dawkins-fight-the-real-fanatics/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Don't look now, but you're projecting again. Why not just come right out and say what you really want to say, Mr. Anonymous-Tough-Guy-On-The-Internet?
Yeah, that's what I thought. 
The writer was gushing about Dawkins' "bravery" in badmouthing Muslims from the safety of a hall in University College London. Had he been saying it in Riyadh, that would have been showing bravery -- and perhaps stupidity. But talking to an almost certainly sympathetic group (AKA "preaching to the choir"
at UCL is not.
Second, an Ad Hominem is not a synonym for "insult". Rather, it is attacking the arguer instead of the actual argument.
Joe: I say that George Bush's tax cuts aided the economy.
Margaret: You're a thief.
Now, Joe may well be a thief, but this has nothing to do with either the validity or the truth (two different things, but that's another discussion) of his argument. Margaret is attacking Joe, not what Joe's said.
An insult is not necessarily an Ad Hominem. "You're stupid, therefore your argument is invalid" is an Ad Hominem; "Your argument is invalid because of <x>, therefore you're stupid" is not.
Moreover, an Ad Hominem need not necessarily be an insult:
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a Catholic priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong.
Look here for a discussion of what is an Ad Hominem and what is not.
