The Prophet’s Letter to al-ʿAlāʾ b. Al-Ḥaḍramī: An Assessment of Its Authenticity in Light of the Covenants and the Correspondence with the People of Yemen

The letter to al-?Alā? b. al-?a?ramī embodies a number of parallels to the covenants and to the Prophet Mu?ammad's correspondence with the people of Yemen. This study examines the different versions of the letter that have come down to us from the Musnad of al-?ārith b. Abī Usāma and from a recension from al-?abarānī's Al-mu?jam al-kabīr to reconstruct a critical edition. Having translated the critical edition and analysed its contents, the study then concludes that the letter is in all likelihood authentic and that it is, generally speaking, textually accurate. The implication of this is that the letter and the covenants represent mutual attestations of one another and that the religion of Islam was well-established, having attained a great level of maturity in the Prophet's lifetime.     

康德论述根本恶的三重维度及其矛盾

康德在《单纯理性限度内的宗教》一书中对根本恶的论述贯穿了三种维度,即先验维度、自由维度和进步维度。但这三种维度之间并不是自恰的,而是存在着矛盾。通过对这些矛盾及康德对矛盾的解决的成败的分析可以看出,这些矛盾是内在于康德的哲学的。对（善）恶的理解只有与人的生存处境和价值追求相联系才有可能。     

Religious Leaders and the Environmental Crisis

Despite the presence of forward‐looking religious leaders at higher levels, there is little recognition and understanding among local‐level leaders about climate change and the irreversible impacts of global warming. This article illustrates this lack of insight among religious leaders and provides suggestions to increase their awareness of the environmental crisis and its solutions. It uses as examples Islamic teachings that Muslim muftis can use to protect the environment, and emphasizes religious leaders’ influence, roles, and responsibility in establishing justice for the earth, for the next generations, and for all creation. Although most of the facts and examples in this article are from a Middle East and North Africa Region and Islamic perspective, its arguments can be applied generally.     

NATURALISM AND THE CATEGORIES “SCIENCE” AND “RELIGION”: A RESPONSE TO JOSH REEVES

This article is a response to Josh Reeve's “A Defense of Science and Religion.” I begin with the disclaimer that this was not solely my project but a joint enterprise. A common commitment of participants was to make the disciplines of history and theology central to the discussion and explore what new possibilities follows for the field of science and religion. I then address Reeves's two central concerns: first that I am too dismissive of the categories “science” and “religion.” In fact I have not advocated dispensing with these categories, but have insisted than we employ them critically and with a sense of their history. The second concern is that my position on naturalism seems to place me perilously close to advocates of ID or scientific creationism. I deny this, but point out that more work needs to be done, beyond simply invoking methodological naturalism, to clarify the differences between naturalistic and theological approaches to the world.     

Is talking to yourself thinking?

The question whether talking to yourself is thinking is considered from two viewpoints: radical behaviorism and teleological behaviorism. For radical behaviorism, following Skinner (1945), mental events such as ‘thinking’ may be explained in terms of private behavior occurring within the body, ordinarily unobservable by other people; thus, radical behaviorism may identify talking to yourself with thinking. However, to be consistent with its basic principles, radical behaviorism must hold that private behavior, hence thinking, is identical with covert muscular, speech movements (rather than proprioception of those movements). For teleological behaviorism, following Skinner (1938), all mental terms, including ‘thinking,’ stand for abstract, temporally extended patterns of overt behavior. Thus, for teleological behaviorism, talking to yourself, covert by definition, cannot be thinking.