@2Quik4UHoes
I read books my good sir, I don't whore google for points that makes me feel better. Slave traders were always in the Sahara, history proves this. The rebellion made West African slaves more desirable, that doesn't mean the East African trade stopped. It means the Saharan routes got a boost. lol, I don't think you even know about the Zanj revolt and how monumental it was especially in terms of attitudes towards Blacks in the world(EAs in particular). It was a pretty big turning point and one of the first points of the more modern form of racism we have today. I'm sure you'll post some random link next to prove you indeed know anything about the revolt and its consequences.
But since you like links so much.
http://www.pinterest.com/caribbeanstory/trans-saharan-slave-trade/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
When did I ever deny slave traders were always in the Sahara? Read my argument again, I said its a myth that prior to the Moors and 19th century that blacks were more numerous than whites in the Trans Sahara slave Trade.
Again the rebellion did not make West African slave more desirable:
"
Deprived of most of their sources of white slaves, the Ottomans turned more and more to Africa, which in the course of the nineteenth century came to provide the overwhelming majority of slaves used in Muslim countries from Morocco to Asia” (Lewis, 1990, Race and Slavery in the Middle East, p. 12)
Also I think I do know about the Zanj revolt.
Why do you keep using quotes out of context like it's proving shyt? 
So are you saying Ottomans comprise the whole of the Islamic era? This speaks to your weakness within this subject. Does the quote you posted take into account what the Umayyads were doing? Or the Abbasids? How bout the Mughals or Muslim China? I had no idea the Ottomans included the Mahgrib or Ifryikka, color me shocked.
Are you forgetting that the Ottomans were one of the largest Islamic empires???
This is the second time you bring up this quote, what does the dwindling supply of white slaves for the Ottoman courts have to do with Moorish society being a slave holding society? Do you even know why they were being deprived of their white slaves? It's funny how dense you are on this, you don't even realize it was the Moors that were the main suppliers of white slaves along with Ottoman dominance of the Balkans which was coming to an end in the 19th century which is what your quote addresses. We were talking about how the Moors had Black slaves and you keep bringing up the Ottomans, both civs had the same societal standards genius they were both part of a wider Islamic world which practiced Black slavery. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
White slaves were popular for the rareness of them plus the women were perceived as the most beautiful, but Black slaves were viewed as the best and most reliable/versatile and had a proven track record. This was in the entire Islamic world(And? right...
) which included al Andalus, the Moors weren't different and you need to understand this. They were progressive in other areas, there were free Blacks as well, but it was a society that held Black slaves like the rest of the Islamic World, but since my bringing up the larger world society Moors were a part of has no use to you lets just move on....
Stop side-stepping. The quote I quoted from you weren't specifically even talking about the Moors but Islamic slavery in general along with the Zanj and Indian ocean trade. From what you said:
"African Empires converted to Islam in order to have better dealings with the greater market which included India and China whom were also under Muslim influence. The Zanj rebellion absolutely turned off slave owners to East Africans and this stimulated the slave trade through the Sahara."
No where did I see any mention of "Moors" mentioned. You're side-stepping, you were talking about Islamic empires going more towards West Africans due to the Zanj revolts. And again the Ottoman empire was by far the largest Islamic empire at that time.
Wow, so now the Zanj rebellion was pure fantasy? 
You do know how those East Africans got there right? Islamic slavery had a much better track record of manumission I coulda swore I told you this already? There were quite a few free Blacks in the Islamic world, but there were also a lot of slaves and that part of Asia is no different. Here breh, just read about the Zanj and what they did since you think they Disney characters or something.http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/655771/Zanj-rebellion https://libcom.org/library/zanj-slaves-rebellion-ad-869-883
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said it was a fantasy I said that there are many historians that doubt it was even a slave revolt due to lack of sources that support it.
lol, this is a good one. You mind linking this quote btw? 
I underlined "large body" for an important reason. It made more sense economically to get Black slaves from the Horn and lower East Africa however this only refers directly to the Arab world and not the greater world of Islam which is our current discussion. Your quote doesn't at all suggest that they weren't involved in the Trans Saharan slave trade but rather that it wasn't as robust as the East African trade which I acknowledged already. You're suggesting that there was no Trans Saharan slave trade, while your own quote says that there was. It was a continuous trade across Africa from West to East, how you've been denying it is just
Again putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that there were no Trans Saharan slave trade??? I and the quote said THERE WAS NO SLAVES FROM THE TSST LINKED TO ANY ARAB COUNTRIES! Meaning that any slaves that were from the Sahara DID NOT go to any Arab countries because they were NOT apart of the Indian ocean trade AKA the Arab trade. It was not no continues trade West to East.
1. Which is why I've been saying "Islamic World" which encompassed many different societies including Arab. So yes, West African slaves most definitely existed in the Arab slave trade. You just flat out don't want to believe that this was at all possible, I didn't say they just raped and pillaged Songhai like they was bytches. They took advantage of smaller kingdoms that wanted to deal cordially with them under the common religion of Islam and got played for it.
2. No it wasn't, wanna know how I know? You own quote says it.
3. So first it was impossible, now they came later on down the line? I guess progress for you is good.
1. Before it seemed you were suggesting that West Africans were apart of the Arab slave trade. And no West Africans did not exist in the Indian ocean trade AKA the Arab slave trade. You keep thinking I have some personal emotion link to this discussion when I'm only looking for facts which you have not provided.
2. What!? My quote clearly states that desert would have made any slave transition from the south difficult and because of that slavers avoided getting slaves from the south.
3. Because people started getting experienced at desert crossing around that time. Heck even Europeans were getting experienced at it. Prior to that they didn't even know where Sahelian cities like Timbuktu were.
All jokes aside I never seen someone so slow. I know it can be tough to read my paragraphs but either your purposely ignoring what I'm saying or you trolling me. nikka, I'm explaining how during the era of the Moors different groups were viewed. 
Berbers......saw.......themselves....differently.....from.......sub......Saharan.........Africans. Arabs........also........viewed.......Berbers......as...different.....from......sub-Saharan..........Africans. Both........groups......took.......sub-Saharan.....Africans.......as......slaves. Sub-Saharan...Africans......also....had.....slaves..... Having.....slaves.....in.....the.....world......of....Islam.....was.....a......sign......of....wealth......kinda......like........
.......having....a.....lot....of....cars.
You're calling slow when me and
@Poitier already addressed???? It doesn't matter if Berbers saw themselves different from other Africans? How does that stop making them black? I already said the Fulani back then were considered white by some Africans. You also missed how I specifcally said how non Africans like Europeans described the Berbers NO DIFFERENT from their African neighbors
Anyways let me get down to business on the descriptions of the Berbers yet again:
5th century AD -
“The Moors have bodies black as night, while the skin of the Gauls is white..." written by Isidore of Seville from The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville - by Steven A. Barney published 2007. p. 386
10th to 11th century AD Iraqi Physician Ibn Butlan wrote,
“The Berber women are from the island of Barbara, which is between the west and the south. Their color is mostly black though some pale ones can be found among them. If you can find one whose mother is of Kutama, whose father is of Sanhaja, and whose origin is Masmuda, then you will find her naturally inclined to obedience and loyalty in all matters… “ cited in Gender and sexuality in the Middle Ages by Martha A. Brożyna p. 303 2005.
1st century Silius Italicus also describes the Moors with the term ‘Nigra’ meaning
black. In the 3rd century Roman dramatist Platus or Plautus maintained the name Maure was a synonym for “Niger” which another common term for the blacks in Europe. 6th century Isidore Archbishop of Seville claimed the word Maure meant black according to Brunson and Runoko Rashidi in “The Moors in Antiquity” in Golden Age of the Moor, 1991.
11th Century-
See Yaacov Lev, “Army, Regime and Society in Fatimid Egypt, 358-487/968-1094″, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 19.3 (1987) p. 342.
At the moment the published DBM list contains no troops that fit this description, and the most likely candidates at this date are probably the Berbers. The Persian traveller Nasir-i Khusrau described Fatimid Masmuda infantry as armed with spear and sword (Yaacov Lev, "Army, Regime and Society in Fatimid Egypt, 358-487/968-1094", International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 19.3 (1987), p.342; although Nasir-i Khusrau for some reason describes them as black Africans, the Masmuda are a Berber confederacy).
And let I reiterate again with all the early black Berbers during the time.
Again ALL DESCRIBED AS BLACK. Name me a non-black Berber tribe prior to the 14/15th century so far no one has.:sasukecocky:
Again all prior to the 14th/15th century where we really started to see non-black Berbers. And also I question your book even the validity of it.
1. They give no date for these light skinned Berbers. Like I said light skinned Berbers came later after the expulsion of Muslims from Southern Europe during the 14th century.
2. They give no date of these light skinned Berbers which is important.
3. They don't even name a specific Berber tribe! lol! I already mentioned that non-black Muslims in Iberia outnumbered the black ones and so we really started seeing more non-black ones.
Understand something. I don't give a flying fukk about what race they were/are that's not what we're discussing, I'm explaining what they were within the context of the racial caste in the Islamic world of which they were a part of. I keep bringing it up because it has relevance to this discussion of the Moors since Berbers were heavily involved in Moorish society.
You have this naive idea that al Andalus was some society where everyone owned white slaves including Blacks when everyone of any colors was enslaved in Moorish society. Blacks were imported, whites were exported. You can think the assault on West Africa began with the Europeans but it was well before that, that just speaks to the greatness of the Empires that thrived during the shyt. Deal with it.
No one said you cared what race they were, simply having an discussion. But...This whole topic IS about proving what race the Berbers/Moors were prior to the 14th/15th century. And so far you have tried to differentiate Berbers from blacks. When:
1. I NAMED you named you plenty of black Berber groups who were the FIRST invaders of Europe.
2. I told you that Berbers are not one monilthic group and the only thing all Berbers share in common is language.
You keep thinking the lighter toned Berbers were the original invading Berbers.
Again name me a lighter toned Berber group that was apart of the invading Moorish group who invaded. We're not talking about racial caste or anything that has to do with racial problems. That's not what the discussion is about in this thread but showing that the Moors has a black root. I didn't saying there were only white slaves. Again you put words in my mouth. I said during that period whites were the PREDOMINATE slaves. And I don't say I am making this up because you can read my earlier post. Whites outnumbered black slaves why do you think slave comes from the word slav. And I never said the assault on West Africa began with Europe, but I did show that the Almoravid conquest of Ghana is no longer taken as a confirmed fact.
Again show me a non-black Berber group that were apart of the original invading Moors that invaded Shouter Europe. Or deal with it.
I'll reply to the rest of your post since its long.
