you dont get to keep posting maps of the almoravids
the almoravid dynasty was the largest that the moors had ever expanded and conquered. so by posting this, i am showing you the maximum possible range of moorish rule.

then say "i never specified what i was calling a moor!! haha loooool fail." when it was really obvious you were using moor to refer exclusively to the berbers in al-andalus which is so fucking wrong its retarded.
i didnt specify what i called a moor. you were putting words into my mouth in order to create a counterargument. thats pathetic.

first the wikipedia article youre using as a source to mean "saracen" was written in the 21st century you retard, its not a long lost relic of the 9th century i promise second "not in 800 A.D." yeah, and you know that how exactly?
at the time, saracen was used as a term for people from or around arabia at the outreaches of the roman empire. it was only used to refer to any muslim, probably as a slur, around the time of the crusades and later. so the 12th century and beyond. please observe this:
Sar·a·cen
   [sar-uh-suhn] Show IPA
noun
1. History/Historical . a member of any of the nomadic tribes on the Syrian borders of the Roman Empire.
2. (in later use) an Arab.
3. a Muslim, especially in the period of the Crusades.
relevant to that, i will also tie in the following:
Quote Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli View Post
oh hey clay, look, heres something else that i could google easily because my keyboard wasnt covered in snickers leavings

There is also the people-deceiving cult (threskeia) of the Ishmaelites, the forerunner of the Antichrist, which prevails until now. It derives from Ishmael, who was born to Abraham from Hagar, wherefore they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites. And they call them Saracens, inasmuch as they were sent away empty-handed by Sarah; for it was said to the angel by Hagar: "Sarah has sent me away empty-handed" (cf. Book of Genesis xxi. 10, 14).

The Fountain of Knowledge by John of Damascus ,c. 730 AD, Chapter On Heresy
specifically where you got this from, again, was a wikipedia page youve already referred to. under the paragraph of your selected quote, it says:
Eusebius and Epiphanius Scholasticus, in their Christian histories, place Saracens east of the Gulf of Aqaba but beyond the Roman province of Arabia
this is a reference to the middle east. the ishmaelites in your quote resided east of the shur of egypt, so in the sinai peninsula, all the way up to assyria, or iraq. the person who wrote your quote about what defines saracens from the 8th century was from damascus, or syria, and never left the middle east. your own posting and the related documents suggest that during that time, saracen referred to tribes in the middle east.
third, the conqueror of bari was not an "arab", he was a berber. berbers are moors.
specifically i said that the emirate of bari was under saracen control. i didn't mention any person, so i'm not sure if you have trouble reading or just comprehending. you are the one who introduced the emirate of bari, documentation shows that the emirate of bari was a saracen state, and i have just proven that under these contemporary boundaries, saracen refers to people of the middle east.
also, what do you mean "bari was not an italian city at this time". yes, it was. it is not possible to translocate a city from off of a peninsula, and if youre arguing culturally then youre seriously the biggest idiot in the world because the person who first brought up moors and italy was talking about the general region of italy not the medieval use of the word which referred more or less to the kingdom in charlegmanes empire anyway youre dumb.
bari, at the time, was under byzantine rule. which by all accounts is not roman/italian rule. the person who first brought up italy was more than likely referring to roman rule, not modern italian geographical boundaries.
How come Italy used to be the center of the civilized world
italy has never been the center of anything, so he was obviously referring to the roman empire. if you want to get back to basics, which is what you are suggesting, then every part of your argument was after the fall of rome. so you've completely lost, as nothing after the fall can be the cause of the fall.