You've given too points in history. It takes three points to define a line. You're overstepping again.
Of course the point is that Cameroon is nowhere even remotely near a muslim-majority nation, and thus would not have supplied predominantly muslim toops to the FFL.
Of course, you're operating under the assumption that military recruitment in African colonies is perfectly representative of the population as a whole. That assumption is a faulty one.
lqclamar
two points in history
As I've already openly caveated the limitations of 1996 CIA factbook data for WWII, your continued harping on its 55 year removal from 1941 serves little constructive purpose to this discussion. The only point is to show a rough indicator of the given countries' muslim populations, which should not be all that far from what they were only two generations ago.
As an aside I do find it interesting though that you would object so vocally to half a century in time while casually dismissing the significance of the entire century between Khaldun and Granada. But you've never been one for consistency.
Of course, you're operating under the assumption that military recruitment in African colonies is perfectly representative of the population as a whole.
I don't recall assuming that or even commenting on it either way. But since some of the places in question were less than 1% muslim, their enlistment rates could be twice that of everybody else and they'd still be a tiny minority in the FFL. Or in other words, inconsequential and peripheral.
Now back on the Hitler side of the war there were units that were almost entirely mahometan. And those units fought on Hitler's front lines in Hungary and Austria. But we've already established that you don't like to talk about them...