[lqclamar]

Back to the question at hand is more like it. And I'll remind you that you're in no position to accuse other people of playing "word games" after having defended (without evidence) your definition of a racial slur that is so divergent from accepted use that you have yet to produce a dictionary that even approximates the definition you gave.

Really? Cause the OED definition you produce said absolutely nothing about Arabs. Yet you explicitly insisted it was an anti-Arab racial slur in practically every post up until then. Your definition did however state that the term was based on a type of headgarb, which I've acknowledged from day one. So since you seem to be in the business of keeping score on that definition, mine was closer to it than anything you've produced before or since. Point to lqclamar.

[zimdog]

Really? Cause the OED definition you produce said absolutely nothing about Arabs. Yet you explicitly insisted it was an anti-Arab racial slur in practically every post up until then.

You mean the definition: "1921 Dialect Notes V. 111 *Raghead, a Hindu; any Asiatic. From the turbanned Asiatics who are common on the campus [of the University of California]," right? "Asiatic" was the racial term used for Arabs at this time. So while it is not necessarily exclusive to Arabs, it is a slur directed at the people of southwest Asia, inclusive of Arabs.

Please remember that you still have not provided any academically reliable (or unreliable) evidence that the term refers specifically to Muslims, as you had claimed.