I've done nothing of the sort.
The only fair comparisons would be to present either both as raw numbers or both as a percentage.
Fair enough. You have repeated the 20,000 number on the Nazi side. Echenberg gives 48,759 recruits from French Soudan alone.
You take the current CIA Factbook statistics to be sufficient for approximating the religious demography the WW2 area, so 48,759 x 90% = 43,883.
IOW, those 20,000 jihadi SS troops constitute a greater percentage of Hitler's forces than the colonial muslims did of the Allied forces.
Comparing the relative strength of 20,000 troops among 18 million Wermacht soldiers with considerably more among the "100-something million or so participants in the allied side of the war effort" is apples and oranges to say the least.
Finally! A statistic! Now was that so hard?
Next you can tell me in what capacity, and where, did they serve?
Comparing the relative strength of 20,000 troops among 18 million Wermacht soldiers with considerably more among the "100-something million or so participants in the allied side of the war effort" is apples and oranges to say the least
We are looking at relative mahometan soldier support for each side, are we not? That means adding up all the troops in the Atlantic theater (i.e. everything in Europe and Africa) on both sides then taking a percentage of them that were muslim. Considering the vast numerical abundance of clearly non-muslim American, British, and Russian forces in that theater, as well as millions of resistance fighters in occupied northern Europe and the non-muslim French, it's safe to say that the handful of muslim french you mentioned were a tiny percentage of allied forces. Now compare that with the atlantic theater Axis troop strength. Muslims were indeed outnumbered there, but I'll venture to guess they were a higher percentage of manpower numbering in the tens of millions combined than in the hundreds of millions combined.