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:
The fourth one is the best one to choose go for it
<span>Under current economic models, corporations are globalized, You can communicate with someone in China as if you're talking to your next door neighbor. If the US were to remain isolated from other nations, it would negatively impact trade that has become a part of our daily lives - for everything from rice to oil to silicon. Trade is what drives economies and policy. To maintain and improve quality of life, which, in my opinion, should be the goal of any civilization, it must take into account globalization. To not follow this policy would make life as we know it extremely difficult to sustain. At the same time, necessity is the mother of invention. If we shut out ourselves from fellow civilizations, we may soon discover a new energy source; but we can look at one current example of a country that has shut out all other countries - North Korea. I don't know if the citizens are truly happy there, I assume not, from what I've heard of the people who try to escape, and it seems that not allowing your citizens basic medical needs which are available everywhere else in the world, but instead you let them suffer (National Geographic has a documentary on one such topic), this seems completely inhumane.
At any rate, this is not a black and white issue, there are many pieces to the puzzle that must be addressed to let us know if this policy would be beneficial to the citizens of the country. Many policies need to be put into place and maky problems must be solved in order to maintain a happy population.</span>
Answer:
. it wouldn't make sense to say that if theres something called white privilege. they have it easy. blm is a movement but some people just don't get it.
