IRFAN Husain’s column ‘The unflattering truth’ (July 6), in which he slanderously attacks my professor and mentor Akbar Ahmed, is bizarre and bewildering. It is a sloppy piece of writing based on factual errors, half-truths, hearsay, prejudice, and malice.

He writes about the launch of Prof Ahmed’s new book, The Thistle and the Drone at the House of Lords, in which Mr Husain participated as a panelist; he devotes the first half of the column to a completely unrelated character attack on Prof Ahmed concerning his film Jinnah released 15 years ago.

All the ‘facts’ that he writes about the controversy around the payments made to Professor Ahmed, mentioning an article in the Guardian as a source, were proved false by an audit conducted by an English firm, Brown McLeod & Berrie, available online (http://www.scribd.com/doc/62829485/Jinnah-Film-Audit-Report).

The audit found that Prof Ahmed, after re-investing his script writing fee into the film, received no payment for the film, nor did any of his other family members who had given up any fees owed to them in order to ensure the project’s completion. The auditors wrote that “the Guardian’s reporter could in fact get his information so wrong that he actually reversed the true state of affairs.”

There are more factual errors in Mr Husain’s article: the tenure of Prof Ahmed as High Commissioner to the UK was nine months, not six; and he never named a road after himself in Balochistan while serving as commissioner there.

Mr Husain then confesses that he did not read the book which was discussed at the launch and for which he was criticising Prof Ahmed. At the launch, he spoke in defence of the use of the drones against fellow Pakistanis.

He argued that the people of the Tribal Areas, who are being struck and killed by the weapon, support its use and tribal structures should be destroyed.

When Prof Ahmed refuted his arguments based on the research of The Thistle and the Drone, Mr. Husain seemed to get upset and did not speak on the subject at the event.

The fact that he resorts to personal attacks in an article a week after can only be seen as a mark of one being ill at ease with true scholarship, ideas and debate.

He not only attacks Prof Ahmed but also me and another American researcher, implying that we were present only to sing his praises when, in fact, we were present as the senior researchers for the book.

Mr Husain seems jealous as well, stating that he did not receive the kind of praise at his own book launch.

I am baffled that instead of recognising the contribution of Prof Ahmed in so many fields, malicious attacks are launched on him instead. Having met Mr Husain, I can understand why.

Harrison Akins Ibn Khaldun Chair Research Fellow in American University’s School of International Service Washington, DC