I think the above title would be suitable for a book that I am considering writing on the question of the Ahmadiyya's, their place in Islam and the reasons behind the sudden upsurge in hostility towards them in Bangladesh. A documentary on the subject has already been done - so I thought there was no point in following in someone else's footsteps and certainly not on their biased and limited premises. I thought that the title 'Muslim or Heretic?' to be making a much too stark a choice (and an unnecessary one at that) and it also leaves far too little to explore. It implies a for or against argument which simply lacks creativity and it does not leave many options open for the director or writer.

It is clear that the documentary ('Muslim or Heretic?') presented only one perspective and was decidedly on the side of the Ahmadiyya's. It is of course open to anyone to make such a choice but it should be explicitly stated and there should not be a pretence of objectivity or fairness. I have had the opportunity of viewing the documentary at the Russian Cultural Centre in Dhaka and was taken aback at the not too subtle slant in its construction. It is my opinion and belief that there is an alternative to the for or against debate or the Islamist vs. Ahmadiyya feud which seems to have consumed much of the time of the makers of the documentary. This apprehension is borne out by the comments on the official website which states: "The battle over Ahmadiyyas reflects a larger struggle for Islam's soul - a struggle between liberal Muslims who believe 'Islam is in the heart' and extremists who are fighting for Iranian-style Islamic States. This documentary focuses on the growing crisis, and the resistance that is coming from Bengali activists." This indicates to me a complete misunderstanding of the issues and a very sentimental approach to the questions facing Bangladeshi Muslims. The person who wrote that statement could not have a proper understanding of the political, social or cultural dynamics at work in Bangladesh.

The violent and vociferous campaign against the Ahmadiyya's has so far resulted in the banning of their books and publications in this country. The title I have chosen for my book ('The Ahmadiyya's- Muslim, Heretics or Paid Agents') has the advantage of laying everything out on the table and tends towards objectivity and balance. It does not appear to incline too much towards the Islamists that are now seeking the Ahmadiyya's be declared non-Muslims by the government nor does it sway in favour of the leftists, secularists and feminists who seem to have agendas that go further than simply human rights and involves subversive activities against the state as well as defaming an entire nation.

The writing of such a book must of course also have a purpose or perspective (rather than just simply being informative) and mine would be to present the country in a truer and better light which does not view Bangladesh as a nation of mindless fanatics continually obsessed with religion. Rather I would like to see Bangladesh portrayed as a nation that takes pride in its religious heritage but is decidedly against a union between church and state and on the whole tolerant of other faiths and beliefs. I would like to show that on the fringes of our society are groups that are desperately trying to push the country in one of two extremes. We are already aware of the Islamic groups some of whom are seeking the creation of an Islamic State on a Wahhabi foundation or platform and on the other side are the leftist and secular outfits that wish to see the complete elimination of religion from Bangladeshi society and culture. Neither of these agendas has wide or mass appeal but are being propagated nevertheless. The Islamist groups are more prone to conducting violent agitation and the leftists and secularists are prepared to take part in seditious and subversive activities against the State. The Islamists have support and funding from Islamic governments and charities based primarily in the Middle East while the leftists and secularists are backed in part by the Americans, Europeans and Indians as well as invested with Jewish money and brains. It is for this reason that these activists have to constantly prove the presence of Islamic terrorists in Bangladesh so their sources of funding do not dry up and they do not become consigned to irrelevance. In other words, they must prostitute themselves to their paymasters and sponsors in order to survive.

In some strange way, all this explains why Bangladesh, on occasion, appears to be engulfed in a metaphorical forest fire with the fire feeding of the wind and the wind feeding off the fire and in the middle there is a great deal of smoke. The politicians in an effort to prevent the fire spreading have to make compromises and satiate the fires appetite but in the long run the fire subsides and everything goes back to normality. Unfortunately, it is usually the leftists, secularists and feminists that are the criminal fire starters as well as the wind that exacerbates the situation further. The foreign sponsors and paymasters just add gasoline to the flames when it suits their purposes. The political parties are usually helpless onlookers or in the case of the AL active instigators and agitators. The political scenario is only one element of this whole set up and necessarily not even the principal one. The question left unanswered by the documentary was whether the Ahmadiyya's are part of the wind or of the fire or of neither.

For this reason when the issue of the Ahmadiyya's exploded onto the streets late last year it was not so much the religious differences that attracted me to this dispute but the accusations of the Islamists (and many non-Islamists) that the Ahmadiyya's were paid agents of a foreign power as well as part of a Jewish-Hindu conspiracy. This allegation was never fully addressed in the documentary and it did not help the director's credibility (writing for The Daily Star does not raise your credibility but substantially hinders it) by having Shariar Kabir (as well as Mohiuddin Ahmed and Ajoy Roy) participate in its making: a person that is notorious for his Indian leanings and sympathies. To make matters worse was the inclusion in the documentary of a human rights activist married to a Jew who works for a television network whose journalists were arrested in Bangladesh for subversive activities and subsequently thrown out of the country. This human rights activist is also noted for her Indian connections and sympathies as well as having an overtly anti-Islamic agenda.

At no point was any leader of an Islamic group (most pertinently the leaders of Hifazate Khatme Nabuwat Andolon) interviewed in the documentary and when a bearded Islamist type appeared he was shown brandishing a lathi or bamboo pole and chasing after someone or making provocative statements. If any such leader was requested to have a one on one interview with the director, for inclusion in the documentary but then refused, then that should have been made clear at the outset. I would have liked to know very much the reason for this frenetic violence and emotional expression from these people but none at all was given. In writing my book therefore, I would have to research both sides and try to provide a balanced argument and appraisal of the facts and opinions of the subject.

In my researches on the Ahmadiyyat Movement I came across a succinct but critical description of their beliefs and doctrines but surprisingly no where is it described as a religion, faith or even a sect:

"A cult within Islam founded in 1889 by Ghulam Ahmed, Ahmadiyya's believe that Ghulam Ahmed was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and this was the fulfillment of the messianic expectations of Christianity being Jesus Christ's return, Judaism, Islam and other religions. In other words, they believe this was the Second Coming of Christ. They believe that Jesus survived the Crucifixion, lived to be 120 and that His tomb can be found in Kashmir (this lie surfaces in many cults following a book written by a fraudster called Nicholas Nontovich. Nontovich was proven a liar and a fraud by explorers who tried to verify even one of his findings, all were proven false). This group are [sic] very large (believed to be about 74 Million), believe they are the true Islam, and are vigorous in their condemning of Christianity. Most Ahmadiyya's are from Pakistan or India. Many have come to America and Europe. There is a large concentration of them in England with 77 meeting centres and a main mosque in Putney." (An Encyclopedia of Religious Cults by Shaun Aisbitt)

This brief description seems to be accurate and does not digress fundamentally from the Ahmadiyya's own documents as well as from orthodox Islamic sources. I can only assume that the Ahmadiyyat Movement is as intolerant and arrogant as any other messianic cult or fanatical grouping but not sufficient enough for it to be considered a threat or dangerous and certainly not deserving of the punishment meted out to it by the Islamic groups in Bangladesh or Pakistan. I think it is probably the assertions of Ghulam Ahmed that he is the Messiah, Mahdi or a Prophet (not the Prophet) which annoys most of the orthodox Islamic believers as these distinctions appear meaningless and to me nonsensical. From a Christian and Islamic theological standpoint the claims of Ghulam Ahmed are supremely preposterous. Still this would not be sufficient reason to oppress or intimidate this group there must be something more compelling for that to happen.

The strongest argument against the Ahmadiyya's is actually a constitutional and legal question not based on theology or obscurantist argument. If we accept the constitutional provisions concerning religious freedom and tolerance does this provision equally apply to groups that are intolerant and if put in a position of power would most likely subvert the rights of others practicing a different faith such as Christianity and orthodox Islam? Orthodox Islam professes tolerance but the same cannot be said of the Ahmadiyya's. In an article written by Louis J. Hammann Ph.D. and published by The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam Inc. it is stated, "… not only did he [Ghulam Ahmed] affirm that he had 'a special resemblance to Jesus' but, on the negative side, that he had been sent … 'so that I should demolish the doctrine of the cross. I have been sent,' he goes on, 'to break the cross and slaughter the swine." Elsewhere in the article Ghulam Ahmed is quoted as saying that the Christian misconceptions about Jesus have had an, "unwholesome and poisonous influence of which has for long been noticed in the morals of the Muslims of this country [India]." (May 15, 1985)

In regard to orthodox Muslims, Ghulam Ahmed has reportedly stated that, "All Muslims who have not entered allegiance to Maseeh Maw'ood (Mirza) [Mirza Ghulam Ahmed] even though they have not heard the name of Maseeh Maw'ood, are kaafir and out of the fold of Islam." (Aai'nae Sadaaqat, Page 35; Ahmadiyya's booklet Review of Religions). This seems to have preempted the orthodox Muslims from declaring the Ahmadiyya's as non-Muslims and most recently it is reported that, "… on the occasion of their centennial inauguration, the head of the Qadiani cult accused all the Muslim ummah to be disbelievers and liars and practically extended the Mubahala (religious prayer challenge of June 10th 1988 on General Zia ul Haq calling for his death by God) to all the Muslims." (Idara Dawat-o-Irshad, USA)

These pronouncements if not expressly renounced by the Ahmadiyya's should disentitle them to any protection under the constitution as their beliefs are in contradiction to the letter and spirit of the constitutional provisions and its ethos (I personally do not think the framers of the constitution had any idea what they were doing but that's a different story) and ironically for the same reasons with Islamic doctrine also. There is no evidence however that the Ahmadiyya's are paid agents of any State but the same cannot necessarily be said for the supporters of their cause. This does not exclude the possibility that the Ahmadiyya's may have some nefarious design similar to secret societies in the West that have not yet been uncovered but as we would treat religious leaders (e.g. Bangla Bhai) with automatic suspicion should we not do the same for a cult that preaches intolerance or have we all become hypocrites.

"As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, you take no part in them in the least; their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did." (The Holy Quran, Al-Anaam, 6:159).