Answer: William and Mary respected Parliament.
Explanation:
Unlike Charles II, William and Mary (like all future rulers) did not try to pass a single law without going through parliamentary procedure. Also, Charles II rejected the rules and did not convene a session of Parliament for three years.
All this was the result of Parliament's distrust of Charles II. This is why the trust was shown to William and Mary.
Answer:
Semejanzas y diferencias entre las civilizaciones mayas, aztecas e incas. 2 ... ¿Qué características de la organización política ... ¿Cuáles fueron las principales características ... El período de esplendor azteca terminó después que el de la civilización inca. ... e incas”. Reflexiona respecto de tu aprendizaje en este capítulo.
The United States of America often sent troops to the nations of Latin American and often became involved in the debt problems of Latin America as a result of the Roosevelt Corollary.
The Roosevelt Corollary was an extension of a previous idea to the doctrine of Monroe. On the one hand, the main idea of Monroe's doctrine was to prevent European's intervention in the Western Hemisphere, on the other hand, Roosevelt corollary was practiced to explain America's invention throughout the Hemisphere. President Roosevelt issued his Corollary to ensure financial strength and to keep other powers outside the Hemisphere. This Corollary stated that all the debts of the Latin American countries would be pay off by the United States of America.
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:
