"Andalus (the Iberian peninsula), which was conquered in the year 92 of the Hijra, continued for many years to be a dependency of the Eastern Khalifate, until it was snatched away from their hands by one of the surviving members of the family of Umeyyah (Umayyad), who, crossing over from Barbary, subdued the country, and formed therein an independent kingdom, which he transmitted to his posterity. During three centuries and a half, Andalus, governed by the princes of this dynasty, reached the utmost degree of power and prosperity, until civil war breaking out among its inhabitants, the Muslims, weakened by internal discord, became every where the prey of the artful Christians, and the territory of Islam was considerably reduced, so much so that at the present moment the worshippers of the crucified hold the greatest part of Andalus in their hands, and their country is divided into various powerful kingdoms, whose rulers assist each other whenever the Muslims attack their territories." —Ibn Said, Book of the Maghrib, in Ahmed ibm Mohammed al-Makkari, The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain, translated by Pascuual de Gayangos s, (London: Oriental Translation Fund, 1840), 1, 95-102 According to this source, why did Muslim al-Andalus fall? rding to this source, why did Muslim al-Andalus fall? It fell because the Umayyads lost their hold on the Arab Empire.
It fell because the divisions within the empire made it vulnerable to attack.
It fell because of the superior military forces of the Christian Crusaders.
It fell because Muslims from the Eastern Khalifate conquered its lands.

In 1912, the imperial system that had ruled over china for thousands of years

In the decision for dred scott vs.sanford, (1857) in which a slave petitioned for his freedom in a st. louis court, on the grounds that his owner had taken him into free territory, and thus he ought no longer be regarded as possessing "slave" status, but should be regarded as a free man, the court decided as follows (excerpt): "in the circuit courts of the united states, the record must show that the case is one in which by the constitution and laws of the united states, the court had jurisdiction--and if this does not appear, and the court gives judgment either for plaintiff or defendant, it is error, and the judgment must be reversed by this court--and the parties cannot by consent waive the objection to the jurisdiction of the circuit court. a free negro of the african race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the constitution of the united states. when the constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the states as members of the community which constituted the state, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizen.' consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. and not being "citizens" within the meaning of the constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the united states, and the circuit court has not jurisdiction in such a suit. the only two clauses in the constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves. since the adoption of the constitution of the united states, no state can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the united states, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument." why does the court say that the petitioning party in this case had no right to sue for his freedom? a) because he is too young b) because he is from a different state c) because he is "of the african race" with enslaved ancestors d) because he is, properly speaking, within his owner's jurisdiction

What two arguments is franklin d. roosevelt making in this excerpt from his "four freedoms" speech? four freedoms by franklin d. roosevelt (excerpt) it is true that prior to 1914 the united states often had been disturbed by events in other continents. we had even engaged in two wars with european nations and in a number of undeclared wars in the west indies, in the mediterranean and in the pacific for the maintenance of american rights and for the principles of peaceful commerce. but in no case had a serious threat been raised against our national safety or our continued independence. what i seek to convey is the historic truth that the united states as a nation has at all times maintained clear, definite opposition, to any attempt to lock us in behind an ancient chinese wall while the procession of civilization went past. today, thinking of our children and of their children, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other part of the americas. that determination of ours, extending over all these years, was proved, for example, during the quarter century of wars following the french revolution. while the napoleonic struggles did threaten interests of the united states because of the french foothold in the west indies and in louisiana, and while we engaged in the war of 1812 to vindicate our right to peaceful trade, it is nevertheless clear that neither france nor great britain, nor any other nation, was aiming at domination of the whole world. a) americans should hold on to their isolationist tendencies as long as their own interests are not under threat. b) americans have always fought to uphold human rights and correct injustices against them. c) americans have always been peaceful but should be willing to go to war to defend their allies. d) americans should go to war to protect their allies against the germans and assert their world domination. e) americans should continue to maintain their freedom even in the face of world domination.