See pages 109-114 of the paper by Sean Anthony and Catherine Bronson "Did Ḥafṣah Edit the Qurʾān? A Response with Notes on the Codices of the Prophet's Wives" This can be accessed with a free jstor account (100 free articles /month) or it's also available on the (slow) academia.edu site.
>Zuhrī—the earliest known scholar to emphasize the importance of Ḥafṣah’s codex for the collection of the caliph ʿUthmān’s recension—also serves as the authority for the accounts of the destruction of Ḥafṣah’s scrolls (ṣuḥuf). Hence, we are likely dealing with two intimately intertwined narratives that originated with Zuhrī and his students. The extant iterations of Zuhrī’s story of, on the one hand, the codification of the ʿUthmānic recension of the Qurʾān and, on the other, the destruction of the Ḥafṣah codex ought to be read as complimentary accounts, inasmuch as they posit Ḥafṣah’s codex as simultaneously indispensable to the establishment of the ʿUthmānic recension carried out by Zayd b. Thābit and definitively surpassed by this recension.
He goes on to describe the report. After Hafsa died, her brother complied with a demand to hand over the sheets of the Quran (ṣuḥuf, same word as in the account of Zayd's collection for Abu Bakr, which says they were inherited by Umar and then Hafsa) to Uthman (or Abd al-Malik b. Marwan in another version), who destroyed them. He also mentions a version where Aisha takes Hafsa's role. While the details on persons vary somewhat, there may be a historical kernal there. It's very plausible that al-Zuhri would have been asked what happened to the original collection. Motski found that he was the common link also for the hadith accounts of the collections under Abu Bakr and Uthman in his renowned isnad-cum-matn analysis of those accounts, which dates them back to the first century.
Anthony and Bronson continue:
>Since Ḥafṣah dies childless and without a husband—as do all the Prophet’s wives—her property rights fall to her brother, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, from whom Marwān demands the codex once again at a later date. Unlike his sister Ḥafṣah, Ibn ʿUmar consents to Marwān’s demands, and Marwān has the codex either erased by washing the parch
... keep reading on reddit ➡Supporters of abortion rights fear that former President Donald Trump’s reshaping of the courts through appointments of conservative judges — including the confirmation of three new conservative Supreme Court justices — puts the future of Roe v. Wade in danger. Now that Supreme Court is likely to further restrict laws, can Biden muster sufficient support to moot a supreme court decision that further restrict a woman's right to chose?
If so, can you give a specific example of when? I feel like it doesnt help that much in my experience but would love to hear from you guys. Good luck to everybody
The Dayak peoples of Sarawak, Sabah, Gaya and Sandakan live under a large variety of customary and traditional systems of laws. Now that a census has been completed, and every Dayak village has been demarcated and a census taken, we can begin the arduous process of codifying and writing down the laws of each of these villages. The gatherings of the elders that were called upon to complete the census will be again called upon, and working together with legal experts, a grand "Brooke Codex of the Laws of the Dayak Nations" will be created. This will be a huge undertaking, and will take many years and require the aid of seasoned legal scholars.
In addition to the simple rules and enforced customs of the Dayak, the legal scholars will also attempt where possible to record the precedents of Dayak law, the stories and judgements of previous generations. These will form the foundation of Dayak law, as they will allow smooth and seamless integration of the laws of the Dayaks into the common law systems employed in the Maharaj of Sarawak.
The Brooke Codex, being a document which will become the foundation of further legal reform or progress, will need to be in English. As such the primary language and authoritative version of the Codex will be the English version, but concurrently to the course of compilation the projected standardisation of 3 Dayak languages will be ongoing, so we anticipate that those languages will be available by the end of this project and the Codex can be translated into these as well.
As part of the Codex, laws will be divided into 3 categories:
- Land and property law
- Public law - constitutional law, administrative law, criminal law
- Moral and religious law
Laws in categories 1 and 3 will be considered to apply automatically as soon as codified, while the 2nd category will be assessed for incompatibilities with Sarawak law before being applied. Where Sarawak law is considered to be incompatible with the public law of a Dayak community, Sarawak law will take precedence, and the community in question will be informed of this fact and required to modify their laws accordingly.
A copy of the relevant portion of the Brooke Codex for each community will be deposited in the town hall of that community and must be freely available for all members of the public to request information from upon demand.
M: This is post 3/10 for my 13-year MILESTONE to integrate the Dayak communities into modern Sarawak.
Allegory of the r/BadHistory Mods Writing the Code. 2020, GNU Image Manipulation Program, 852 x 691.
Friends, users, colleagues, comrades. You will likely note that the sidebar now looks substantially different on both the redesign and the old style of Reddit, and, I think, on mobile. Probably.
I went through today and essentially rewrote the rules from scratch. I haven't really changed anything, per se--the version listed in the redesign sidebar was based directly on a distillation of the old full wiki rules, the old version sidebar is a trimmed down version of the redesign sidebar, and the current wiki rules are an extended version of the redesign sidebar, so nothing's really strictly different, per se. The main points are that I've trimmed a few rules off into their own sections to help them fit in the mobile sidebar and allow us to better clarify the different rules for normal posts and debunk/debate posts.
The rules are, I hope, now simply more cohesive. Any notable additions generally reflect our unwritten consensus on how to interpret the rules. The rules have been reordered, as in the past most of our citations have been rules 3 (requirements) and 4 (civility) with a smattering of 2 (politics). As such, brigading has also been deemphasized. It's difficult to prove and isn't nearly as prominent on the site as it was a couple of years ago, though we still ask that recent reddit posts be linked through screenshots.
I've also cleaned up the side bar a bit in order to make it look a little more professional and a little less early 2010s-ish. I'm also probably going to be reorganizing the wiki sometime soon in an attempt to clean it up a little. I don't want to erase our history and all the subreddit's vintage memes--I have been plastering "The Volcanic Code" everywhere, after all--but I feel like we could stand to clean up some of the references to guys who were barely getting mentioned even when I created my account a little under four years ago, and put the legitimately useful material, like the full rules and explanations of the in-jokes that are still popular, front and center.
Thank you for your cooperation. Vivé la pédanterie!
I am a first-time exam taker who took and passed FAR this earlier this month and just wanted to share some material I used from a Financial Accounting Research class I took in graduate school.
The linked document is two parts: 1) a layout of all of the FASB Topics on a single page and 2) the name and description of the various sections.
I would basically read over these daily just to become familiar with the codification hierarchy. A piece of advice I have seen on here quite a bit is to go as far as you can on your own before using the search function. I found this to be great advice since the search function in the Professional Literature on NASBA is not very good in comparison to the search function on the actual exam.
After reading my research question on the actual exam, I knew immediately what topic it was under and I know 100% that I got the question correct in about 3 minutes. This was valuable time I was able to use on the other SIMs.
I use Roger CPA and did approximately 43 practice Research TBS between the curriculum and AICPA practice tests/released questions. I tracked what sections were most commonly used in the questions I answered and found approximately 80% involved Sections 25, 30, 35, or 45. I also found that approximately 85% involved Subtopic 10. Another trend I noticed was that the released SIMs on the AICPA released questions came from the 900 Topics for specific Industries which I never encountered in the Roger curriculum so I would definitely recommend being familiar with those as well.
Anyways, this is just anecdotal and I wanted to contribute to the community in some way so hopefully it helps at least one person.
https://preview.redd.it/c9pubomt7sg51.png?width=458&format=png&auto=webp&s=afe511483ef431c495f2b30d014a0c37ac221f7a
I'm trying to do research on SaaS revenue recognition and can't search because only the professional version has that feature. I really don't want to pay $1,042 for access.
Anyone have a free work around that would allow for searching?
I'm looking at a company that has reduces their their expenses because of the implementation of 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers.
https://i.imgur.com/Vczbrq9.png
https://investors.i3verticals.com/news-releases/news-release-details/i3-verticals-reports-third-quarter-2020-financial-results
Effective October 1, 2019, our revenues are presented net of interchange and network fees in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers.
So where does this expense go then?
We learned this in class and while trying to look for the actual codification I assume it's based off of, the closest I got was the superseded SFAS 2. Is this exception simply based on logic in occurrence to the rules of when you recognize revenue?
