Answer:
The Day of Reconciliation, celebrated on December 16th by the republic of South Africa each year has the purpose of promote reconciliation and national unity and the fight against oppression suffered by the black community.
Explanation:
Though, originally its meaning was different and changed since 1838 (known originally as Dingane’s day) several times during history, after Mandela’s wining, since 1995 was stablished as a celebration which united both the feelings of the natives as well as the Afrikaners (white people) and is establish as a day of forgiveness and union for the entire South African nation, regardless of skin color, strengthening the principles of non-segregation, forgetfulness of resentment and differences that Mandela implemented as his ideology and that are outlined in the actual South Africa’s constitution nowadays.
<span> 1. The constitution - the legislative branch cannot enact laws that violate the constitution. this limit is kinda limited in that the legislative branch could vote to change the constitution, but it would be extremely difficult and would also need ratification by 2/3 of the states.
2. the president- congress can pass laws, but they are not official laws until the president signs them. the president can refuse to sign a law the legislative branch has passed or veto them. with a super majoiity the legislative branch can override a veto though.
3. the people - the people vote for who is in the legislative branch. if we dont like what they do we can vote in new guys.</span>
Well I mean, everyone has a unique individual mind and personality. Every person has their own internal life and thoughts and beliefs and way of looking at things that influences how they see the world around them-people, experiences, places, events, everything.
Answer:
To begin, we need to first grasp the basic terminology relevant to the study of religious minorities. Religious minorities are known as dhimmīs, short for ahl al-dhimmah, or people of the dhimmah, a term that later became synonymous with the People of the Book.[4] The original meaning of al-dhimmah, however, meant protection, and it was often short for dhimmat–Allah wa-rasūlih, or the “protection of God and His Prophet.”[5] In short, the concept originally had a divine connotation, or a meaning that was directly related to the power of God. However, the concept soon morphed into a technical legal term with the progression of classical scholarship, and it consequently lost its transcendent dimension.[6] As a result, ahl al-dhimmah, or people of the dhimmah, has become a legal term and not a reference to the recipients of divine protection. It is important to discuss the etymology of the word because it demonstrates the significance of the people of the dhimmah who, at the very root of it all, are people who were to be protected on behalf of God and His Prophet ﷺ – an immense responsibility. This status is awarded to People of the Book (who according to many scholars includes Zoroastrians and others) who agree through contract to pay the jizyah, or poll-tax, in exchange for that protection.[7] In sum, the formation of the people of the dhimmah was rooted in religious minorities paying a tax that exempted them from military service. Much more nuance can be embedded within all of these terms that are sometimes highly contested among scholars, but considering the limited scope of this paper, we will move forward to address the larger picture at hand.
The power of the Muslim state was dependent on its ability to provide two precious resources to its people: security and justice.[8] Christians and Jews and other minorities were not technically citizens of the Muslim state; they were considered outsiders under the protection of the state, leading to the title of dhimmah, or protected people.[9] Their protection was guaranteed in a number of ways: by providing them with legal autonomy – meaning they could maintain their religious practices without interference – and protection during war. That said, there have no doubt been incidents throughout history in which that protection was threatened or revoked and the Muslim ruler engaged in persecution of religious minorities.[10] The fact remains, however, that there was never widespread systematic persecution of Christians, for example, in the Islamic world as there was in the late Roman Empire.[11] And the hostile circumstances that did occasionally arise, were not due to Islamic legislation per se, but were rather a result of an amalgam of social, political, and economic circumstances. So while Christians historically at times suffered at the hands of Muslims, it was almost never a result of their being Christian, or their beliefs, but a result of various factors related to the pursuit of power.[12]
Explanation:
