Which statement accurately contrasts the ottoman and safavid empires in the 16th century?
a. safavid rulers were muslims who persecuted hindus living within the empire, whereas ottoman rulers practiced sikhism, which shares some beliefs with both hinduism and islam.
b. safavid rulers believed that muhammad's successor was his close friend abu bakr, whereas ottoman rulers believed that muhammad's successor was his son-in-law ali.
c. ottoman rulers believed that muhammad's successor was his close friend abu bakr, whereas safavid rulers believed that muhammad's successor was his son-in-law

The correct answer is C) Ottoman rulers believed that Muhammad's successor was his close friend Abu Bakr, whereas Safavid rulers believed that Muhammad's successor was his son-in-law.

The statement that accurately contrasts the Ottoman and Safavid empires in the 16th century is Ottoman rulers believed that Muhammad's successor was his close friend Abu Bakr, whereas Safavid rulers believed that Muhammad's successor was his son-in-law.

The Sunni Muslims recognized and respected the Four Caliphs as their religious leaders. But the Shiite Muslims believed that Ali, the descendant of the Four Caliphs, was its religious leader. Both factions had to settle their differences to have a better chance to fight the Christian Crusaders that that wanted to take the lands of the Temple of Salomon to the Christians.

mesopotamian code of hammurabi

and i think its 1860 b.c. you mean lol

they gained control over the philippines, east dutch indies/indonesia, much of new guinea, the solomon islands, guam, and other strategic areas all over the western pacific. japan even occupied part of the aleutian islands, which belonged to alaska.

source:

have a great day