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...
If that's what you believe, why do you take issue with my (conservative) figure of 67,000 Muslim troops out of the 200,000 froml West Africa? Here are the low-end estimates of the Francophone West Africa countries' Muslim populations, according to the current CIA Factbook:
Benin – 20%
Burkina Faso – 50%
Côte d’Ivoire – 35%
Guinea – 80%
Niger – 80%
Mali – 90%
Mauritania – 100%
Senegal – 94%
Togo – 20%
Being familiar with the region, I don't expect these numbers to be much different than the figures given in your 1995 print edition. Perhaps you are being deliberately argumentative. Perhaps.
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.
Please explain how I "casually dismissed" it. I mentioned that the Reconquista was not complete in Khaldun's 14th century life. It ended with the fall of Granada at the end of the 15th century.
And since you're harping on inconsistencies that don't exist, I take great pleasure in pointing out that there was no gap in time "between Khaldun and Granada," as Granada (the state and the city proper) was in existence for the entire duration of Khaldun's life. The fall of Granada occurred in 1492, ending the Moorish Granada state 86 years after Khaldun's death.
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...
From your description, it doesn't sound like they did much fighting there, really. They were on the "front lines" because the front had been pushed westward in 1944-1945 as the Nazi war machine crumbled. I'm sure the Aryan supremacists in Berlin preferred to send Slavic ûntermenschen to the eastern front slaughter in order to preserve their blond-haired, blue-eyed praetorians for defense of the Heimat.
As you mentioned (#214), the the Handschar troops deserted in massive numbers in Hungary and the remaining troops raised the white flag a month after arriving in Austria, presumably having moved there for the opportunity to surrender to the Brits rather than Stalin's Red Army.
Of course, the French could have focused their recruitment efforts in Muslim areas, right?
Well, if 2% is an "inconsequential minority...
Now back on the Hitler side of the war there were units that were almost entirely mahometan.
... then why do you keep bringing up Nazi Germany's 21,000 Muslim troops? Since, the Germans had millions of soldiers, these 21,000 would be, by your standards an "inconsequential" "tiny minority" of their overall forces.