If you had consulted me, or if you had done even rudimentary fact-checking, you would have concluded that I have never used abusive speech against Islam. I have called IslamISM “vile” but surely you, of all people, understand that Islamism is not the same as Islam. I have criticised the ridiculous pseudoscientific claims made by Islamic apologists (“the sun sets in a marsh” etc), and the opposition of Islamic “scholars” to evolution and other scientific truths. I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. Far from attacking Muslims, I understand – as perhaps you do not – that Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism, especially Muslim women.First, there is no generally-agreed difference between Islamism and Islam. The term "Islamism" is just some sort of insult against Islam.
I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?
Second, saying that Muslims are the victims of Islamism is like saying Communists are the victims of Communism. Somewhat true, but just an odd way to play a victim card.
Third, the Left does not approve of Islam, but they are much more interested in exterminating white Christianity, and they see Islam as an ally. So they like Dawkins as long as he attacks white Christians, as he usually does.
Fourth, abuse of Trump and Trump voters is cheered by both Dawkins and KPFA. So "abuse" is not really the issue.
Dawkins wants credit for criticizing the murdering of apostates, but he does not get it. The Ctrl-Left would probably like to murder its own defectors. And pointing out the barbaric aspects of Islam makes Christianity look good by comparison, and the Ctrl-Left does not like that.