Earlier this year there was a dispute at the University of Flint-Michigan over the use of a prayer room, after one student, named Zea Miller, complained that the room had been monopolised by Muslim students. According to a report in the local paper, there were different views as to the legitimacy of his complaint and the matter was resolved peacefully.
And how does Daniel Pipes cover this dispute? He quotes a Jewish students’ organisation at the university who supported the complaint, but omits to mention that a student Christian group stated “we don’t have a problem sharing that room” and accused Miller of “using that as a basis for his own intolerance”. Pipes reports that “the brave student who initiated the complaint about Islamist aggression, Zea Miller, said he was subsequently stalked, harassed, and insulted”, but ignores the fact that the university investigated Miller’s claims and said they were unfounded.
Pipes’ conclusions? “Islamists are always aggressive” and “Islamists can be beaten back”. And he heads his blog entry “Islamist supremacism in miniature”.