<span>Reducing Islamic fundamentalism to an expression of terrorism while ignoring the grievances may only deepen conflict, not resolve it, maintains Beverley Milton-Edwards in her introduction. Therefore she – a reader in politics and international affairs in the School of Politics at <span>Queen’s </span>University, Belfast – has researched the development of the problem since <span>World </span><span>War </span>II. In chapter one, she summarizes the history of Islam, touching on the expansion of Islam, the global rising of </span><span>Europe, the age of empire building in Muslim countries and the era of national independence. In chapter two, she examines the movements of national independence and secular rule in a variety of Muslim countries and the role of the Islamists in helping to shape the political discourse during the modern age. In chapter three, she addresses the fallout of secular dictatorships that denied freedom and democracy to the masses. Here she concentrates on the stirrings of revivalism and fundamentalist thinking in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In chapter five, she appraises the emergence of a new global political order and its impact on Islamism. In chapter six, the devastating consequences of a new cultural hegemony on Muslims are examined after alQaeda’s attacks on America. <span>Finally, </span>in chapter seven she offers her conclusions.</span>
<span>Rather than being geographically specific and focusing on the regional heartland of Islam – the Middle East – the focus of her book is the whole Muslim world, the countries where the majority of the population are Muslims. Suffice it to <span>say, </span>during her chosen period of time, since 1945, the citizens of these countries have been subject to a range of forces: foreign rule and occupation, movements for independence, rising nationalism, secularism, growing Islamist tendencies, reform, revolution and repression. The reader might argue that all these factors were already at work following <span>World </span><span>War </span>I, and so the reason for taking the end of <span>World </span><span>War </span>II as a starting point for this study remains unclear. That said, I will discuss three of the author’s major insights.</span>
Answer:
D. They believed it was unnecessary since the Constitution limited the federal government, and each
Explanation:
According to the Philadelphia Convention - a new Constitution for United States provided for a strong government with an extraordinary amount of power given to the president and the senate. The Anti - Federalists charged that the new federal government resembled a monarchy in its concentration of power at the expense of liberty. The Federalists rejected the arguments of the Anti - Federalists by relocating it in the people. They on the other hand argued that since the constitution which represented the people had sought to instruct and control the institutions of government, thus all sovereignty rested with the people and that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights,
The Anti - Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.
Under the leadership of Madison, the first federal Congress attempted to fulfill this promise and proposed twelve amendments to the Constitution. In 1791, ten of them were ratified by the states, and these became the Bill of Rights.
The Opus 55. I really like the melody and tune of the song, its very well written and I love the sound it's relaxing.
Hope this helps :D
Really sorry about this but I have a question that needs to be answered and it won’t let me until I answer someone
