Which best explains how religious tolerance the ottoman and mughal empires succeed?

The options of the question are, A) by showing religious tolerance, both empires maintained stability and earned loyalty from different peoples. B) by showing religious tolerance, both empires maintained power and earned new converts to Islam. C) by showing religious tolerance, both empires created new religions and earned loyalty from different peoples. D) by showing religious tolerance, both empires created new religions and earned new converts to Islam.

The correct answer is, A) by showing religious tolerance, the Ottoman and Mughal Empires maintained stability and earned loyalty from different peoples.  

The success of both empires is that they showed respect and tolerance to the different religions they adopted when conquered its territories. This created acceptance and loyalty in people that lived in their territories. For instance, in the Ottoman Empire, King Suleiman I was called “Suleiman the Magnificent” for the advancements he produced in his kingdom and the tolerance he showed in religious beliefs.  

question: write a report analyzing through articles of confederation.

answer: the articles of confederation the united states constitution was written when the people feared strong government the new nation needed some kind of organization to hold states together to them fend off future attacks and make a stronger support system through the states and people the states bonded through a friendship that best served as a defense against a invasion and states were not allowed to use taxes as a way to discourage treaties, and states were extremely limited in their dealings with foreign nations the strengths were that the congress has the highest power in the nation because of   fear of monarchy congress had the sole power to declare war and assign treaties disputes between states and territorial issues were to be brought to congress and weaknesses were the lack of power given to congress the articles gave congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws if a state did not support a federal law that state could simply ignore it congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade.

explanation: so like every argument they have strengths and weaknesses but in this case there were more weaknesses but they managed o get through it and make an agreement

question answered by

(jacemorris04)

athenian democracy developed around the fifth century bc in the greek city-state (known as a polis) of athens, comprising the city of athens and the surrounding territory of attica, and is often described as the first known democracy in the world. other greek cities set up democracies, most following the athenian model, but none are as well documented as athens'.

it was a political system of direct democracy, in which participating citizens voted directly on legislation and executive bills. participation was not open to all residents: to vote one had to be an adult, male citizen, i.e., not a foreign resident, a submissive or a woman, and the number of these was "probably no more than 30 percent of the total adult population."[1]

the longest-lasting democratic leader was pericles. after his death, athenian democracy was twice briefly interrupted by oligarchic revolutions towards the end of the peloponnesian war. it was modified somewhat after it was restored under eucleides; the most detailed accounts of the system are of this fourth-century modification rather than the periclean system. democracy was suppressed by the macedonians in 322 bc. the athenian institutions were later revived, but how close they were to a real democracy is debatable. solon (594 bc), cleisthenes (508/7 bc), and ephialtes (462 bc) contributed to the development of athenian democracy. cleisthenes broke up the power of the nobility by organizing citizens into ten groups based on where they lived rather than on their wealth.

hope this !