Of course, when I cited the English language's most respected dictionary, you refused to accept that definition because it's entry (1993) wasn't current enough. On the subject in question (current racist slurs), urbandictionary.com is an invaluable source, if used carefully. I'll remind you that you have yet to produce a single dictionary that defines the term in question as a religious slur rather than a racial one. I have provided two.
Much the same, you would be failed for claiming a specific fact - such as a statistic - in your term paper, yet only citing it in the footnote to a generic source with no page number.
And much the same, if you made vague reference to a book that you claimed was the keystone for all "moderate" Islamic thought and failed to provide any evidence for that claim but instead brusquely informed your reader that it was his duty to find and analyze it, you would fail.
Actually you were attempting to force me into making an answer that, while seemingly fitting your argument of trying to minimize jihadi involvement in the Reich, did not accurately portray the well documented historical involvement of Husseini in Hitler's regime and the equally well documented participation of Husseini-recruited muslim SS troops in Hitler's army.
The existence of Muslim Nazi troops is documented almost as well as the existence of Christian Nazi troops.
You also probably thought you were being clever by asking it. That is why you respond in hostility upon discovering that I did not take the bait, and why you accuse me of dishonesty instead when my response only pointed out an inconvenient historical reality that you would prefer to overlook.
I asked you how many divisions the Mufti had. You gave me a number of troops, none of whom were under his control. Which means you gave me a dishonest answer. The honest answer is that the Mufti had zero divisions.
PS -- This website (http://www.africultures.com/anglais/Edito%20anglais/Edito25.htm) gives an estimate of 200,000 WW2 troops from West Africa alone. Since their WW1 numbers roughly match with numbers used by professional historians (163,000) I have reason to trust the WW2 numbers. With a very conservative estimation of 1/3rd of the soldiers professing the Muslim faith, we have 67,000, although the number is likely much higher.
Huh? I just reviewed my response and I indicated my only complaint with it was your mistaken portrayal of religions, nationalities, and geographies described in the definition as "races." Given those mistakes in your usage, your original assertion that the term is racial in nature remains unsubstantiated and unsourced.
On the subject in question (current racist slurs), urbandictionary.com is an invaluable source, if used carefully. I'll remind you that you have yet to produce a single dictionary that defines the term in question as a religious slur rather than a racial one. I have provided two.
No. You provided one source that was dismissed because it does not rise to the level of a valid scholarly citation, and a second source that did not show what you claimed. Again since you're the one making the affirmative assertion, sourcing it is incumbent upon you.
Except that my reference has been anything but vague. I provided you the title and author, and summarized the pertinent tenets. If you wish to challenge those tenets its your burden to familiarize yourself with that book and post a response. You have chosen out of stubbornness not to do so, which makes any further discussion of it with you difficult.
The existence of Muslim Nazi troops is documented almost as well as the existence of Christian Nazi troops.
Back to tu quoque I see. Too bad for your cause that the Nazi leadership tended to be pagan occultists, and its Christian support was almost entirely confined to a few denominations. Unlike the muslims, who Hitler generally embraced wherever he had the opportunity because of their mutual Jew hatred, entire Christian denominations such as Catholics, and several evangelicals were directly persecuted by the Reich.
I asked you how many divisions the Mufti had.
And I have responded that your question is intentionally loaded to produce a deceptive answer. Knowing that Husseini himself was not a general and thus did not personally command any divisions, you intended to corner me into answering in the negative at which point you could dishonestly dismiss the significant mahometan support for the Reich. You only attack my answer now because I did not take your bait, responding instead with an accurate historical representation of the mahometan Waffen-SS division that Husseini and Himmler raised.
PS -- This website (http://www.africultures.com/anglais/Edito%20anglais/Edito25.htm) gives an estimate of 200,000 WW2 troops from West Africa alone.
That site appears to be a letter to the editor of a small West African newspaper. It does not rise to the level of a reliable source, so barring something more specific I remain skeptical. And while you're searching I'll also point out that west african does not necessarily = muslim. The region as a whole large mahometan and Christian populations, as well as dozens of lesser voodoo and animist religions. Any number you produce should accordingly account for these distinctions within the troop population as well, rather than attempting to pass off all african FFL troops as muslims.