The law helped unify the Muslim society because the law states that everyone on this earth is equal, and that behavior and how you treat others plays a huge role on how they unite. The Muslims pray together, break fast together, and work together. That is what made the Muslim society strong and held it from breaking apart. <span />
She knew the land very well and she knew how to interact with other Indian tribes and if she wasn't with them, they could've been killed possibly by other Indian tribes because the white man was looked down upon by them because they had forced them out of their lands before
According to Al Bakri, Kumbi Saleh (Ghana) consisted of two towns. In one town lived the arabs, it held twelve mosquets and numerous wells of sweet water. In this town lived learned men, as well as jurists and religious men. Six miles away laid the city where the king lived (Al Ghaba), in a palace surrounded by a defensive wall.
Only the king and his heir could wear sewn clothes and other accessories, signs of wealth, while the common people that followed his religion could only dress with simplicity, shaving their beards and hair. The king's way of living would exude power, wealth and magnificence, and his followers could only show humility by kneeling and sprinting their heads with dust. While the arabs would greet him by clapping.
As I understand it, the customs in arab lands were much more equal, there were not big social differences between its inhabitants. In the other part of the city, this was not the case, there would be big social differences between the king and its followers, that the author doesn't name bi its etniciti, nationality or religion. They were just the followers of the king.
<span>The Independent Democrats and many northern Whigs abandoned their affiliations for the new antislavery Republican party, leaving southern Whigs without party links and creating an issue over which the already deeply divided Democrats would split even more.</span>
Answer:
Explanation:
Instituted in the hope of avoiding war, appeasement was the name given to Britain’s policy in the 1930s of allowing Hitler to expand German territory unchecked. Most closely associated with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, it is now widely discredited as a policy of weakness. Yet at the time, it was a popular and seemingly pragmatic policy. Hitler’s expansionist aims became clear in 1936 when his forces entered the Rhineland. Two years later, in March 1938, he annexed Austria. At the Munich Conference that September, Neville Chamberlain seemed to have averted war by agreeing that Germany could occupy the Sudetenland, the German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia - this became known as the Munich Agreement. In Britain, the Munich Agreement was greeted with jubilation. However, Winston Churchill, then estranged from government and one of the few to oppose appeasement of Hitler, described it as ‘an unmitigated disaster’. Appeasement was popular for several reasons. Chamberlain - and the British people - were desperate to avoid the slaughter of another world war. Britain was overstretched policing its empire and could not afford major rearmament. Its main ally, France, was seriously weakened and, unlike in the First World War, Commonwealth support was not a certainty. Many Britons also sympathised with Germany, which they felt had been treated unfairly following its defeat in 1918. But, despite his promise of ‘no more territorial demands in Europe’, Hitler was undeterred by appeasement. In March 1939, he violated the Munich Agreement by occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia. Six months later, in September 1939, Germany invaded Poland and Britain was at war.
