Islam Must Rule the World

[Michael]

Kadark,

I simply do not think you are not thinking clearly.

There was. Before the Caliphate, the middle east was full of different tribesmen and Persians who went to war with Byzantians, who went to war with barbarians, etc. It was an endless cycle of war and uneasiness.

Before the Mongolians went to war with China there were many wars between Chinese and so we can justify killing them and stealing their land and looting their stuff…

Before the Spanish went to war with the Aztecs there were many wars between South Americans and so we can justify killing and stealing …

Before the Europeans went to war with the Native Americans there were many wars between the Native Tribes and so we can justify war of aggression…

Before the Americans went to war against Iraq there were many things Saddam did that GW Bush Jr didn’t like… and so we can justify war with Iraq…

Makes as much sense to me.

War of aggression is wrong.

Hindered? I see no point in debating you, man. Are you f^ing serious? HINDERED? Science was hindered by Islam?

You are not thinking clearly. I am not singleing Islam out. Any Religion. As a matter of fact Norsefire said as much and I agreed.

Did you miss that?

That’s what I am referring to.

modern science to have begun in the Islamic civilization, in particular, due to the beginning of the modern scientific method among Muslim scientists.

And this has what to do with “Islam”? Absolutely Nothing.

OK, look at it this way, do you think that the Greeks made their advancements BECAUSE they were polytheists?

Do you think Newton discovered calculus BECAUSE he was Christian?

Do you think Einstein discovered e=mc^2 BECAUSE he was Atheist?

Well, do you?

Nope

Timeline of the history of scientific method

Yes Muslim philosophers did add to the advancing of science – BUT I also feel they could have done much much more. The reason why I think so is because, when I compare their advancements to that of ancient Greeks/Romans and with the Europeans post-Renaissance it’s plain to see they were being held back.

Do you know what Alhazen did for a living before he wrote his book on optics? Did you know he spent a lot of time in prison and died there? Do you know why? What was the date and when was the Golden Age of “Islam”? When did he die? Why again? Something you may want to think about as you ponder poor Alhazen’s death in custody. Soon you may even come to the conclusion “Islam” had nothing to do with Alhazen’s work and probably he was greatly influenced by his earlier work as a transcriber. Why did he die again? What was so Golden about this Age? Oh yeah, “Islam”.

I usually think of Francis Bacon when I think of the Scientific Method.

They surpassed them because of their scientific methods with experimenting.

Can you give me a specific list of your favortes:

The greatest math principal discovered.
An example of the human form in sculpture and bronze (a pic is fine).
An example of an “Islamic” monument (a pic of a period building).
The greatest discovery in biology.
A period peace of the greatest painter (a pic of a painting).
The principal treaty on Civic rights and Democracy (title is fine)

Should be a snap really and I’d really like to see them. and I'd think you'd be happy to post them anyway.

The best piece of Islamic mathematics? Take your pick. Algebra, arithmetic, calculus, cryptography, geometry, induction, number theory, trigonometry...

I’m asking you to pick one. Then tell me why this has anything to do with “Islam”.

The method of exhaustion (calculus) was rediscovered in China by Liu Hui in the 3rd century AD, who used it to find the area of a circle. It was also used by Zu Chongzhi in the 5th century AD, who used it to find the volume of a sphere.

Gee must be due to Taoism – right Kadark?

Come on, you are being biased, and it influences even the way you are reading my posts and debating the points, you'll certainly not find me saying modern physics came from Christianity and you'd agree, but here you are saying the same thing about calculus and Islam :bugeye: THAT'S Biasedness.

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Virtually all of those deaths occur in Third World countries with despotic governments, not in western industrial nations. I fail to see how those deaths facilitate our lifestyles. This has nothing to do with our capitalist influence; capitalists want consumers to buy their products and there are no consumers in destitute countries. To the extent that there may still be some unreformed robber-barons running American corporations (e.g. Halliburton Corp.), exploiting the Third World for resources, those corporations will be outcompeted by more englightened corporations who recognize the economic reality that prosperous consumers generate more profits than cheap resources.

Many sincere good-hearted people clamor that we must "do something" about Darfur and other hearthbreaking regions, but what? Every time we meddle in the affairs of other nations we just make them worse. That is, after all, how the Third World got to be the way it is: the more advanced societies have been meddling in their affairs since the days of the Egyptians and Romans. I keep reading these anguished op-ed pieces in the Washington Post, written by educated Africans, pleading, "Please leave us the hell alone and let us solve our own problems, no matter how long it takes. You people mean well but all your clueless "help" does is to make it harder for us."

Why won't anyone read?

I'll even provide the exact link

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/death/

This guy has been researching these issues as a personal concern (apart from his "real" work) for over 10 years.

people are hungry not due to lack of availability of food, but because people do not have the ability to purchase food and because distribution of food is not equitable. In addition, there is also a lot of politics influencing how food is produced, who it is produced by (and who benefits), and for what purposes the food is produced (such as exporting rather than for the hungry, feedstuff, etc.)

Research carried out by our Institute reveals that since 1996, governments have presided over a set of policies that have conspired to undercut peasant, small and family farmers, and farm cooperatives in nations both North and South. These policies have included runaway trade liberalization, pitting family farmers in the Third World against the subsidized corporate farms in the North (witness the recent U.S. Farm Bill), forcing Third World countries to eliminate price supports and subsidies for food producers, the privatization of credit, the excessive promotion of exports to the detriment of food crops, the patenting of crop genetic resources by corporations who charge farmers for their use, and a bias in agricultural research toward expensive and questionable technologies like genetic engineering while virtually ignoring pro-poor alternatives like organic farming and agroecology.

http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0206hunger.html

ROME--At 3:00 AM on Monday morning the United States stood alone among all nations of the world in blocking further discussion of the draft text of the declaration that governments will sign at the World Food Summit. What was leading the U.S. to stop the all night negotiating session? First, the U.S. wanted all references to “food as a human right” to be deleted, and second, the U.S. wanted strong language saying that genetically modified (GM) crops are a key way to end hunger. The Third World nations organized in the Group of 77 wanted mandatory language on the Right to Food, while Europe and Canada held out for the compromise of a voluntary Code of Conduct. No other nation felt strongly that GM crops should receive prominence.

The only positive thing in the official declaration was the proposal for a “voluntary” code of conduct on the Right to Food to be developed over the next two years. The United States, which had vehemently opposed the right to food in any form, finally accepted this version which is a) not mandatory and b) not immediate. Apart from that, the declaration is a disaster as far as ending hunger goes. It repeats the flaws of the 1996 Summit declaration which led to the failure to meet hunger reduction goals over the past five years, including an endorsement of free trade, a recommendation of more structural adjustment for the poorest countries, and a call for greater private investment. It also adds the golden goose that the U.S. wants -- biotechnology -- and drops a key victory from the 1996 declaration, land reform. All in all, a bad performance by governments.

The main problem you see, is that no one even cares sufficiently enough to inform themselves about what is happening.

World hunger exists because: (1) colonialism, and later subtle monopoly capitalism, dispossessed hundreds of millions of people from their land; the current owners are the new plantation managers producing for the mother countries; (2) the low-paid undeveloped countries sell to the highly paid developed countries because there is no local market [because the low-paid people do not have enough to pay] ... and (3) the current Third World land owners, producing for the First World, are appendages to the industrialized world, stripping all natural wealth from the land to produce food, lumber, and other products for wealthy nations.

This system is largely kept in place by underpaying the defeated colonial societies for the real value of their labor and resources, leaving them no choice but to continue to sell their natural wealth to the over-paid industrial societies that overwhelmed them. To eliminate hunger: (1) the dispossessed, weak, individualized people must be protected from the organized and legally protected multinational corporations; (2) there must be managed trade to protect both the Third World and the developed world, so the dispossessed can reclaim use of their land; (3) the currently defeated people can then produce the more labor-intensive, high-protein/high-calorie crops that contain all eight (or nine) essential amino acids; and (4) those societies must adapt dietary patterns so that vegetables, grains, and fruits are consumed in the proper amino acid combinations, with small amounts of meat or fish for flavor. With similar dietary adjustments among the wealthy, there would be enough food for everyone.

http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/food/wfsreportday4.html

http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/richard.robbins/legacy/hunger_readings.htm

Also why just sending food or aid is a bad idea


http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/FoodDumping.asp

Dumping food on to poorer nations (i.e. free, subsidized, or cheap food, below market prices) undercuts local farmers, who cannot compete and are driven out of jobs and into poverty, further slanting the market share of the larger producers such as those from the US and Europe.

As I always say, follow the money.

 

[S.A.M.]

I do note that much of the islamic advance in math came from India, and that Omar Khayyam was an atheist. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Are you talking about the development of algebra?

And you mean they were using information from infidels? Hmm weird.

And atheists were writing books on alcohol without losing their heads. Weirder.

 

[(Q)]

Why won't anyone read?

Because your posts are off topic.

 

[S.A.M.]

Because your posts are off topic.

Uh, excuse me for discussing what and who really rules the world.

 

[ibm.eub]

Hang on what year are we in? Is it 2007? Few more thousand years and religion should work just fine. Just ironing out some problems!!!

 

[GeoffP]

Are you talking about the development of algebra?

And you mean they were using information from infidels? Hmm weird.

And atheists were writing books on alcohol without losing their heads. Weirder.

Ever heard of an incidence model, or a probability threshold?

People always slip through the cracks of "justice". Even the "morally codified" kind.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ever heard of an incidence model, or a probability threshold?

People always slip through the cracks of "justice". Even the "morally codified" kind.

You're telling me!

 

[Norsefire]

Kadark,

The problem with the assertion you are making is you are also making an assumption there was great advantage to ME being Islamic.

There wasn't great advancement. I think an argument can be made that advancement was in actuality hindered. Firstly, you can simply read what happened to the Byzantine under Christendom - as I posted above. Then read what happened to those societies post-Muslim invasion. Now stop and think that people in the ME have always made some advancements. So it should not be any different under an "Islamic" empire - people did progress.

But there are two other things to consider
1) They did so very bloody slowly and
2) in some areas of expertise they never equal achievements of thier polytheistic/atheistic Romans and Greeks ancestors.

What does that say to you? Of the many "achievements" Islam gave to the World often the greatest is their preservation of Greek literature, philosophy and maths and science. What does that suggest?

What was the best peace of Islamic maths? Did it equal the concept of mathematical proofs or Archimedes's near-advent of calculus? What about medicine? What of Civil rights and democracy? Where are the sculptures of human form? Bronzes? Mechanical devices?

Yes there were achievement's in some areas but considering that they had the knowledge of the Greeks they certainly didn't get very far. That's just a fact of history.

Michael

There was a huge advantage in the ME becoming Islamic, and that was Unity, something Europe didn't achieve for a long time afterwards until the 20th Century

I quote Kadark on this "Are you fucking serious?". Apparently advances in Algebra, mathematics, Medicine, and astronomy are not good enough for you, no. If it weren't for many advancements made by Moslims, the world would not be the same today.

Also, Moslims in the past were rewarded for having an open and creative mind. Intelligence was a gift. Why then are there Islamic terrorists? Like I and Kadark have said, it has to do with Politics, not religion. Entrepeunars are rewarded not shunned.

 

[Baron Max]

If it weren't for many advancements made by Moslims, the world would not be the same today.

Perhaps. But then you have to ask yourself ....Why did the Muslims and/or Arabs just stop that "advancement"? Why aren't they thousands of years ahead of the western culture in all things? As I see it, without the western influences of today, Arabs and Muslims would still be nothing but sheep and goat herders, if that much.

... Why then are there Islamic terrorists? Like I and Kadark have said, it has to do with Politics, not religion.

If that's true, then there should be a similar type of terrorism going on all over the world. But there ain't. So Muslim terrorism is much more than just politics.

Baron Max

 

[Norsefire]

Perhaps. But then you have to ask yourself ....Why did the Muslims and/or Arabs just stop that "advancement"? Why aren't they thousands of years ahead of the western culture in all things? As I see it, without the western influences of today, Arabs and Muslims would still be nothing but sheep and goat herders, if that much.



If that's true, then there should be a similar type of terrorism going on all over the world. But there ain't. So Muslim terrorism is much more than just politics.

Baron Max

Because of politics, as I said. Because of the extremists that want nothing but Islamic law and no freedom and no creativity in society. That's why. If it weren't for Islamic advancements, the west would be nothing but Sheep and Goat herders, if that much.

No, you're wrong. It's to due with politics, yes, but you can't compare, say, England with Iraq.

For instance:

England is what I would call a "liberal" state.
England is at peace
There are no hardships or opression that the English face daily

In Iraq:

There are deluded men that want total control
Iraq is at war
The Iraqis are living in opression and destruction

That causes the young Iraqi men to have nothing to live for but revenge, and they want some way to justify their actions for which they turn to Islam, but they are wrong in all they do because it says no where in the Koran to kill the innocent or to cause war. That's the difference, therefore your argument makes no sense. The world is not all the same.

 

[Baron Max]

Norsefire, from that last comment, I can only conclude that you don't know what the fuck you're talkin' about. You've been reading too many liberal, psycho-babble bullshit ....and now you're just spreading it around to see how much it stinks. ..and to try to make people think you know something!

Baron Max

 

[Norsefire]

And that is what Baron does when he is at a loss for words.

So you are saying that the opression and chaos the young Iraqi men are facing and the hostile environment (both physically and politically) is not the reason they grow to become terrorists? Ah, now you make sense

 

[Baron Max]

So you are saying that the opression and chaos the young Iraqi men are facing and the hostile environment (both physically and politically) is not the reason they grow to become terrorists? Ah, now you make sense.

Well, think about it for a bit, okay?

Other than Muslims, have there ever been any other people in the world who face oppression and chaos in a hostile environment?

If so, did those people also turn to vicious terrorism, and kill innocent women and children, their own people, in retaliation to the oppression?

If there have been, I don't know about them. But perhaps you do. If so, please provide some examples of people other than Muslims who have resorted to similar acts of terrorism ...especially against their own innocent women and children.

Baron Max

 

[(Q)]

Uh, excuse me for discussing what and who really rules the world.

Off topic.

 

[S.A.M.]

Off topic.

See previous comment.

 

[Michael]

I quote Kadark on this "Are you fucking serious?". Apparently advances in Algebra, mathematics, Medicine, and astronomy are not good enough for you, no. If it weren't for many advancements made by Moslims, the world would not be the same today.

We have two things here.

Hypothesis #1
Monotheism of any kind, be it Christendom or Caliphate, stagnates science, arts and the advancement of modern civilization.

Hypothesis #2
People living in the Caliphate did make some scientific advancements, but similar to the Byzantine and the Germanic Christendoms Empires, their advancements were hindered not promoted by living in a monoTheocracy.


How do you suggest we go about answering these hypothesizes?

Next:
When it comes to the discovery or invention itself why would I give two craps about what religion of the scientist was? I find it interesting that people who happen to be Muslim like to talk about "Muslim" science coming from "Muslim" Scientists - just as they talk about a "Islamic" Golden Age. Which of course makes zero sense but is a handy manner in which to perpetuate this false notion there was a wondrous Caliphate that existed in the past where everyone lived in a close to ideal "Islamic" Civilization as prescribed by God and we'd live in it today if people were pious like back in the good ole days and if it weren't for those pesty kids and their dog! Scoooobie Dooobie Dooooo! (back in the good ole days, when men were pious and slavery legal Approx. Death due to Slavery in the Christian World = 19M and in the Islamic World = 15M from 650-1600 CE)

Ask yourself:
Did Egyptians make mathematical advances because they worshipped the Pharaohs?
Did the Chinese make advances in Calculus because they were Tao? Did Archimedes make advancements in Math because he was polytheistic (if he was)? Did Einstein come up with e=mc^2 because he was an atheist? etc..

The answer is of course no.

Do we say Hindu mathematician or Indian mathematician?
Do we say Christian Renaissance or European Renaissance?
Do we say polytheistic Golden Age or Greek Golden Age?
Do we say Tao Golden Age or Chinese Golden Age?

Of course the latter, so why say Islamic Golden Age? Why Muslim scientists? Why Islamic Science? Think on that a little.

NEXT:
Do we credit the Chinese Golden Age to the Religion of the Mongolians? No. Do you think that just because the Mongolian conquest of Chinese precipitated the "Chinese" Golden Age (you may insert Tao or Shaman Golden Age if you think it makes more sense) that this then justifies the upwards to 40 million people murdered? No. Do you suppose that because the ME is in turmoil the USA has the right to invade it? What if the USA then turned all Muslims into Evangelical Christian which was followed by a "Christian" Golden Age - would that be a right, moral? No. So why justify the Muslim invasion of the ME?


Back to Hypothesis #1.
We have the Egyptian and Greek and Roman scientific advancements so we could compare these with those of the people living in and during the Caliphate. We should expect that because the people living in the Caliphate had the work of the Greeks to go on that they would have done at least as good and probably a bit better. RIGHT?? At the end of 1000 years we'd really expect to see marked advancements!
Right????
Also, I notice that as Christendom collapsed in Europe the Renaissance occurred. Many Muslim for some reason instead attribute the Renaissance to Islam - as if the Italian painters somehow learned their craft from people living in the Ottoman empire and that the only way they would have ever had a Renaissance was if Islam gave them the tools to have it.
This doesn't make too much sense to me. 1) The Greeks and Romans had a Golden Age and Empire 1000 years before Islam so they of course could do it again. 2) Greek and Latin works were held in monasteries so there is no need of Arabic translations. You'll notice the word NEED lets be clear - did I say they didn't have Arabic translations? No. Did those translations and building on of Greek work help perpetuate the Italian initiate Renaissance? Yes. 3) The main reason why the Renaissance occurred was the decline in the power of monotheism. 4) The USA separated government from religion and together with secular democracy made advancement in a couple generation that all of humanity hadn't made. Their science has remade the world.

You asked if I thought Islamic arts and science was "good enough"? I said they built on the works of the Greeks. Here is some of their works. So lets see an example of some sculpture of the human form from an "Muslim" artist.

Here's the famous Greek bronze sculptures 450BCE of the Riace warriors. According to the BBC they are unique in that even today bronze sculptors do not know how they were made and can not recreate them in detail. The backs are very interesting because the muscles of the human body can not flex both back and chest and so their stance is alluring - almost in a anime sort of style. The legs are longer then is possible in a normal human.
Amazing really:

How about the famous Greek statue of Laocoön and His Sons from 100 BCE:

Then there is the Antikythera mechanism - the most complex mechanical device made up until the 17th century. The Antikythera mechanism was made in about 100 BCE as well.

How was The Pietà by Michelangelo built upon Islamic work? He did this work in the 1400s and lived in an Italian city surrounded by Roman copies of Greek Art.

Again, I really would like to see some Islamic sculptors of human form.
So instead of just saying it, stop for a moment, do some research and post two or three of the best human art forms in bronzes and marble that the “Islamic” Golden Age had to offer? Anyway, I’d really love to see them as I appreciate that sort of art work.

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Human art forms were not common but you could instead look at the tile work of the mosques.

Besides, what does Greek art have to do with Islamic art? Are you saying the presence of art in Greece or Europe makes the art, science or advances of the Muslim era redundant? Or should it be diminished or not considered a place of pride in their history? After all, it is their Golden Age. Why not compare to other times in their own society and see at what point all of them were united under one ideology, in a manner calculated to bring out the best among all of them at the same time?

Are you of the opinion that the presence of Western values makes the Islamic values inferior even though it is the Western lifestyle which requires the blood of innocents to support itself?

Frankly, what makes Western civilisation so superior when it is based only on mouthing civilities and yet all its progress is dependent on stripping resources from less powerful countries while at the same time pretending to be humanist and purveyors of human liberty? While they support trade practices that ensure the demolition of self sustaining society (and call it healthy competition) but invade and occupy countries because they wish to trade their own oil in euros (not so healthy competition)?

 

[Norsefire]

Well, think about it for a bit, okay?

Other than Muslims, have there ever been any other people in the world who face oppression and chaos in a hostile environment?

If so, did those people also turn to vicious terrorism, and kill innocent women and children, their own people, in retaliation to the oppression?

If there have been, I don't know about them. But perhaps you do. If so, please provide some examples of people other than Muslims who have resorted to similar acts of terrorism ...especially against their own innocent women and children.

Baron Max

Yes, lots of others. Lots and lots of others. Vietnamese, Chinese, Europeans, etc

You also make no sense in but one simple fact: Why, during the Islamic Golden Age, did such things not happen?

Because there were no crazy leaders
No opression, war, and chaos
And no need for such things
No ignorant foreigners that have not a clue about a single thing


So, other than moslims? Plenty. It is because of such environment and such evil men taking the stage that these things are happening.

And if you are implying that it has something to do with Islam, please provide to me what about Islam makes them more prone to terrorism?

 

[Norsefire]

We have two things here.

Hypothesis #1
Monotheism of any kind, be it Christendom or Caliphate, stagnates science, arts and the advancement of modern civilization.

Hypothesis #2
People living in the Caliphate did make some scientific advancements, but similar to the Byzantine and the Germanic Christendoms Empires, their advancements were hindered not promoted by living in a monoTheocracy.


How do you suggest we go about answering these hypothesizes?

Next:
When it comes to the discovery or invention itself why would I give two craps about what religion of the scientist was? I find it interesting that people who happen to be Muslim like to talk about "Muslim" science coming from "Muslim" Scientists - just as they talk about a "Islamic" Golden Age. Which of course makes zero sense but is a handy manner in which to perpetuate this false notion there was a wondrous Caliphate that existed in the past where everyone lived in a close to ideal "Islamic" Civilization as prescribed by God and we'd live in it today if people were pious like back in the good ole days and if it weren't for those pesty kids and their dog! Scoooobie Dooobie Dooooo! (back in the good ole days, when men were pious and slavery legal Approx. Death due to Slavery in the Christian World = 19M and in the Islamic World = 15M from 650-1600 CE)

Ask yourself:
Did Egyptians make mathematical advances because they worshipped the Pharaohs?
Did the Chinese make advances in Calculus because they were Tao? Did Archimedes make advancements in Math because he was polytheistic (if he was)? Did Einstein come up with e=mc^2 because he was an atheist? etc..

The answer is of course no.

Do we say Hindu mathematician or Indian mathematician?
Do we say Christian Renaissance or European Renaissance?
Do we say polytheistic Golden Age or Greek Golden Age?
Do we say Tao Golden Age or Chinese Golden Age?

Of course the latter, so why say Islamic Golden Age? Why Muslim scientists? Why Islamic Science? Think on that a little.

NEXT:
Do we credit the Chinese Golden Age to the Religion of the Mongolians? No. Do you think that just because the Mongolian conquest of Chinese precipitated the "Chinese" Golden Age (you may insert Tao or Shaman Golden Age if you think it makes more sense) that this then justifies the upwards to 40 million people murdered? No. Do you suppose that because the ME is in turmoil the USA has the right to invade it? What if the USA then turned all Muslims into Evangelical Christian which was followed by a "Christian" Golden Age - would that be a right, moral? No. So why justify the Muslim invasion of the ME?


Back to Hypothesis #1.
We have the Egyptian and Greek and Roman scientific advancements so we could compare these with those of the people living in and during the Caliphate. We should expect that because the people living in the Caliphate had the work of the Greeks to go on that they would have done at least as good and probably a bit better. RIGHT?? At the end of 1000 years we'd really expect to see marked advancements!
Right????
Also, I notice that as Christendom collapsed in Europe the Renaissance occurred. Many Muslim for some reason instead attribute the Renaissance to Islam - as if the Italian painters somehow learned their craft from people living in the Ottoman empire and that the only way they would have ever had a Renaissance was if Islam gave them the tools to have it.
This doesn't make too much sense to me. 1) The Greeks and Romans had a Golden Age and Empire 1000 years before Islam so they of course could do it again. 2) Greek and Latin works were held in monasteries so there is no need of Arabic translations. You'll notice the word NEED lets be clear - did I say they didn't have Arabic translations? No. Did those translations and building on of Greek work help perpetuate the Italian initiate Renaissance? Yes. 3) The main reason why the Renaissance occurred was the decline in the power of monotheism. 4) The USA separated government from religion and together with secular democracy made advancement in a couple generation that all of humanity hadn't made. Their science has remade the world.

You asked if I thought Islamic arts and science was "good enough"? I said they built on the works of the Greeks. Here is some of their works. So lets see an example of some sculpture of the human form from an "Muslim" artist.

Here's the famous Greek bronze sculptures 450BCE of the Riace warriors. According to the BBC they are unique in that even today bronze sculptors do not know how they were made and can not recreate them in detail. The backs are very interesting because the muscles of the human body can not flex both back and chest and so their stance is alluring - almost in a anime sort of style. The legs are longer then is possible in a normal human.
Amazing really:

How about the famous Greek statue of Laocoön and His Sons from 100 BCE:

Then there is the Antikythera mechanism - the most complex mechanical device made up until the 17th century. The Antikythera mechanism was made in about 100 BCE as well.

How was The Pietà by Michelangelo built upon Islamic work? He did this work in the 1400s and lived in an Italian city surrounded by Roman copies of Greek Art.

Again, I really would like to see some Islamic sculptors of human form.
So instead of just saying it, stop for a moment, do some research and post two or three of the best human art forms in bronzes and marble that the “Islamic” Golden Age had to offer? Anyway, I’d really love to see them as I appreciate that sort of art work.

Michael

Although I agree that it's not Moslims golden age, the reason its said is because these happened at a time when Islam was at the peak of power in the world and the ME the most important world location.

I consider it more of an Arab golden age though