Also Dr. Clarke discussed this at length back in the late 1980's early 1990s.
Dr. Clarke's material is important to this discussion, but we cannot treat his material as if it is above the same scrutiny as others or as if his findings are not subject to "mistakes". There is lengthy analysis concerning the ethnography of Arabs that is all but ignored while using Dr. Clarke's material to justify not actually engaging the data or subject he covered.
This issue was brought to my attention by Africans living on the continent back in 2001. What was their motivation???
I cannot say what their motives where but I don't fault them nor do I think its necessary for them to have had any ill or deceptive intention. When looking at the African conflicts and the intersecting and/or overlapping tribal/ethnic or cultural definitions the frame work of an "us vs. them (enemy)" is a very poor way of understanding what's actually taking place. From the POV of the person is living out the day to day hardship of it all, there's nothing that says that such a person know (or need know) the details of what's happening, they may only know that "hell is happening and we don't like it". But the events themselves are not self contained explanations (ie the violence explains the violence and the Arabs are doing it). There's a reason why those types of attitudes don't make it 5 minutes into a "serious" discussion on pretty much anything going on the African continent, because its not an explanation and it quickly reaches a point where it stops making sense.
However, if there is an ideological goal of disassociating Islam from all things African and making Arab other than African (which it has been proven to be)--those distinctions matter little and the myth continues on.
Now who is bold enough to attempt to discredit Dr. Clarke's work?
Its not a question of being "bold" enough to discredit Dr. Clarke. That's NOT how the academy works. Dr. Clarke work is a matter of public record and open to academic discourse. The question is can is work, results and findings be reconcile with the historical record and new information and insights concerning the historical record?
This is no different than Dr chancellor williams's mis idenitification.