320. Review of Bahá’í Literature and Dealing with Questions of Historical Accuracy

320

Review of Bahá’í Literature and Dealing
with Questions of Historical Accuracy

29 January 2019

To a National Spiritual Assembly

Dear Bahá’í Friends,

320.1 The Universal House of Justice has received your email letter dated 26 September 2018 enquiring about guidelines for your literature reviewing committee which would assist it to identify material that is contrary to the teachings and asking whether the review process limits Bahá’í authors’ freedom of expression. We have been asked to reply as follows.

320.2 The House of Justice is of the opinion that the difficulties which arise in the review process come, not from a need for clarification of the guidelines, but from a need for good judgement and common sense in their application. The mandate of review is specific. Its purpose is to ensure that works about the Bahá’í Faith by its members represent the teachings and the history of the Cause in an accurate and dignified manner and that their publication is timely. Reviewers must keep assiduously to the task at hand, recalling that their duty is only to determine whether there are misrepresentations of the teachings: the rest is the author’s responsibility. They should avoid entering into the domain of author and publisher by offering conceptual guidance or editorial recommendations. It is also not the purpose of review to offer critical comments on an argument put forward in a document except as they pertain to the accuracy or dignity of the Bahá’í content.

320.3 In carrying out their task, reviewers are expected to use their knowledge of the fundamental teachings of the Faith, as well as their good taste and good judgement—good taste in assessing the level of dignity required for the particular work in view of its nature and intended audience; good judgement in assessing whether an inaccurate presentation is serious enough to be corrected, or whether even an accurate presentation could produce a distorted impression, or even dangerous repercussions, if published in the conditions prevailing at the time and location of publication.

320.4 The approach taken by reviewers must be tailored to the case at hand. In a book written about the Faith there is some latitude for the author to explain the teachings in his own terms; review should then ensure that the representation of the teachings offered in the work is not inconsistent with the content of those teachings as found in the Sacred Writings and authorized texts. With respect to works of history, which deal with the lives of the Central Figures themselves, reviewers should pay much closer attention to ensure that the events that are related and words that are quoted, as well as the thoughts, intentions, and motivations that are ascribed to historical figures, have a sound historical basis. While it is not their responsibility to verify the accuracy of every detail or identify all historical errors in a manuscript, they should ensure that the work does not contain significant inaccuracies or unsubstantiated statements that would misrepresent events, or the behaviour and character of historical persons, and which would distort the historical record.

320.5 Authors have a responsibility to support the statements they put forth—but a citation to another source is not necessarily sufficient support, for a single statement in a memoir, for example, does not always establish a fact. Competent historians evaluate the veracity and reliability of historical documents in light of all the information available to them, including established facts, other contemporary accounts, the reliability of the author, the general context and background, and so on. But a reviewer examining a manuscript need not be a professional historian to detect an assertion which exceeds what the evidence offered can support, or which is inconsistent with other historical facts and reliable sources. The reviewing committee should not hesitate to ask authors to provide documentation to substantiate statements, particularly those which are speculative in nature or raise questions in the reviewers’ minds because, for example, corroboration cannot be found in available histories, the statements are inconsistent with established facts or seem improbable or out of character, or the source cited cannot support the assertion or inference made, and the like. If, on initial examination of the manuscript, it appears that such problems are extensive in the work, the author may be advised at the outset to address the issue in general before the manuscript can undergo review. Authors of scholarly works that are based on materials that may not be known or available to those who must do the reviewing are at liberty to bring this situation to the attention of the responsible National Assembly. Should a difference of opinion arise between the author and the reviewing committee, and the National Spiritual Assembly is unable to find a resolution, the matter may be referred to the Universal House of Justice.

320.6 If reviewers identify what they believe to be inaccuracies, or feel that the manuscript gives a false impression or is undignified in its representation of the Faith, they should raise these issues with the author, who should be enabled to respond. It is the reviewers’ task to call the author’s attention to any misrepresentations or factual errors in the work so that these may be corrected, but they should avoid telling authors what they must say: it is the author’s prerogative to determine how to reconcile any contradictions or inconsistencies between his statements and the teachings of the Faith. However, the standard of accuracy that is to be upheld should not restrict the introduction of new insights into the teachings by a Bahá’í author, and there should be room for a cordial but nevertheless trenchant interplay of views as the friends explore the many implications and applications of the teachings.

320.7 It should be evident from the above discussion that it is misleading to characterize review as restricting a Bahá’í author’s freedom of expression. Any publisher naturally requires that a manuscript proposed for publication must meet certain standards and must submit to a process of fact checking, and this in no way can be considered restricting the author’s freedom of expression. When conducted appropriately, the process of review can be considered to be comparable to that of peer review used by all reputable scientific journals—in other words, as an opportunity for any lapses in accuracy by the author to be identified, thereby avoiding possible embarrassment. In addition, it assists Bahá’í authors to avoid making erroneous representations that present a distorted image of the Faith which would be difficult to correct at a later time. The author for his part is, presumably, a loyal Bahá’í, equally interested in the accuracy and proper presentation of his work, and he has, if necessary, the right of appeal, even as far as the Universal House of Justice. Indeed, given that all those involved are concerned with safeguarding the vital interests of the Cause, the process of review provides an occasion for institutions and individuals to wholeheartedly collaborate in the promotion of those interests.

With loving Bahá’í greetings,

Department of the Secretariat