In 1918, Wazir Fadhu Basaria (1848-1918), the third Estate Agent of Karachi, Lasbela and Sind is reported to have asked Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah at Bombay to issue an order to wind up the Amir Pir Mela due to the difficulties faced by the visitors. In reply, the Imam said to build there a Majalis Hall (old name for the prayer-hall, which had not acquired the status of a Jamatkhana, now the term “Community Centre” is used), so that the Ismailis might attend the Jamatkhana too. The Imam changed the date and fixed it from 15th to 20th November. It suggests that Imam did not like to hamper into the customary veneration of the visitors due to the prevalence of illiteracy in the community.

[acidfree:10838]

Thus, a Majalis Hall was built in Amir Pir, making the visitors divided into their precepts. On November 16, 1919, Wazir Fadhu Basaria laid the foundation stone of the Majalis Hall in Amir Pir.

Imam Sultan Muhammad arrived in Karachi on April 10, 1920 for 27 days visit. Itmadi Mukhi Ghulam Hussain Alinani, the President of the Council of Tando Muhammad Khan presented a key and requested Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah on April 18, 1920 to visit Amir Pir and make opening ceremony of the Majalis Hall or Jamatkhana, which he had built. The Imam showed his inability to travel and told to Wazir Rahim Basaria (1885-1927) to execute its formalities on his behalf. It was built in a year at the cost of Rs. 30,000/- under personal supervision of Itmadi Ghulam Hussain Alinani. It was opened on November 15, 1920 by Wazir Rahim Basaria in presence of Varas Karim Kassim (1878-1958), Varas Bandali Kassim (1875-1956), Varas Muhammad Remu (1860-1924), Alijah Alidina Ali Muhammad (1884-1952), Alijah Vali Kassim, Pir Sabzali (1884-1938), Missionary Hamir Lakha (1888-1963), Missionary Thavar Abdul Hussain, etc. The Hyderabad, Sind Volunteer Corps managed the occasion excellently under Major Yonus Khalikdina.

[acidfree:11623]

It was renovated in 1951 and 1984. It was further repaired and coloured in 1995 quite in modern style, making its original look disappeared.

Imam Hasan Ali Shah arrived in India in 1842. His son and successor, Imam Aga Ali Shah joined him in Bombay in 1852. Imam Hasan Ali Shah had consigned the office of the Piratan to his son in 1853, which he executed for 28 years till 1881. He used to visit lower Sind on hunting expeditions from Karachi. He visited Jerruk and the location of Amir Pir, where he found the tradition of Amir Pir Mela. He liked its climate and stayed there for many days. Like his father, he also realized that the assemblage of the Ismailis once a year would solve their social and religious problems, therefore, he is said to have told to continue the fair as usual and enter into matrimonial and business relations with one another.

[acidfree:10836]

In 1853, he built his residence lying behind the present Jamatkhana on hilltop. Its marble plate reads: “H.R.H. The Aga Khan II Aga Aly Shah Palace, 1853.”

[acidfree:10837]

The Ismailis of lower Sind and Karachi visited the place for change of climate and it was a kind of get-to-gather assembly, but few among them visited the cave. The residence of Imam Aga Ali Shah was later renovated in 1984 and 1996.

When Imam Hasan Ali Shah left Iran, some faithful and loyal Shi’ite soldiers from Kirman also joined the Imam’s caravan. Soon after his arrival in Sind, Sir Charles Napier posted him at Jerruk at the end of February, 1843 to secure communications as well as restore peace between Karachi and Hyderabad. The Baluchi leader Mir Sher Muhammad Khan attacked at Jerruk on March 23, 1843. The Imam spurred his fleet horse and advanced with full gallop, penetrating the front ranks of the enemies and fought against the overwhelmed odds. In the skirmish, the Imam’s horse skidded and he fell on the ground. Some thirty Ismaili warriors managed to bring the Imam in Hyderabad for treatment.

Soon after the tragic event of Jerruk, the Baluchis attacked the Shi’ite soldiers of the Imam, who were patrolling on the route between Jhimpir and Kotri. Some of them were killed and buried at the location of Amir Pir. When Imam Hasan Ali Shah arrived in Jerruk from Hyderabad after recovery, he visited the location with his few followers. He crossed the shallow water of the Soneri Lake and reached the hilltop of Amir Pir’s location on horse. He dismounted and offered fatiha on the graves of his Shi’ite soldiers. The followers preserved the marks of the Imam’s footprints, known as “Shah’ja Kadam.” The local Shi’ites walled the space with an alam (crest or emblem) inside on a staff, where a ceremony of its hoisting was performed before 1984.

The Ismailis from Muscat, Gwadar, Sind, Kutchh, Kathiawar and Gujrat flocked at Jerruk to behold the Imam before the attack on Jerruk. Looking the social and religious worth of a mixed gathering, Imam Hasan Ali Shah intended that such gathering should be held once a year in Sind for the scattered Ismailis to solve their social and religious problems. Jerruk was thick with the population of the Muslims, which could hardly accommodate the visiting Ismailis. During his above visit at Amir Pir, Imam Hasan Ali Shah liked its climate and resolved to purchase the land on hilltop. On his return to Jerruk, he is said to have told to his followers to hold an annual gathering at an open place, where the Ismailis of Sind had already become used to assemble from time to time. The purpose of the Imam was to create unity among the Ismailis of District Thatta, who lived in 16 villages and Shah Bandar in 4 villages. The location was acquired from the British government in 1845 in the period of Mukhi Alidina Asani (1793-1881), the first Estate Agent of Karachi, Lasbela and Sind. In other words, the Ismailis connection with the Amir Pir Mela dates from the time of Imam Hasan Ali Shah. According to the “Gazetteer of the Province of Sind” (Bombay, 1927, p. 42), “The connection of the Khojas with this region dates from the time of the British conquest, shortly before which the grandfather of the present Agha Khan (Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah) came to Sind from Persia.”

The Jhimpir Mela however was formally begun in 1851. The Muslims in lower Sind considered that it was started by their Amir Pir (Imam Hasan Ali Shah), the fair therefore became known as Amir Pir Mela. It ensues from an old manuscript that the first mela was celebrated with great pomp. It was attended by the Ismailis of District Thatta, Shah Bandar, Mulla Katiar, Hyderabad, Tando Muhammad Khan and Karachi. During the celebration, the marriages of 18 couples were solemnized.

While going through the traditional list of the Pirs contained in the old Dua, the name of Pir Amir Ahmad is documented as the 6th Pir. He is also called Amir, Amir Ahmad or Ahmad Ali. His period is controversial, not located conclusively, which provided most pregnant opportunity to the people to cultivate unreliable stories. Dr. Abualy A. Aziz in “Brief History of Ismailism” (Dar-es-Salaam, 1974, p. 110) writes that, “Pir Amir Ahmed, the sixth Ismaili Pir, was none other than Imam Jafar as-Sadiq.” The weakness of the later sources, indicating however a remote possibility, not strong one, that Pir Amir Ahmad was sent on special mission by Imam Muhammad al-Bakir or Imam Jafar Sadik. The oral disfigured tradition claims that he was that very person, known as Amir Pir in Jhimpir. The name of Pir Amir Ahmad in the traditional list comes next to Imam Zayn al-Abidin, which also does not mean that both were contemporary.

We pause for a while to have a look at the traditional list of the Pirs as under :-

1. Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him)
2. Hazrat Hasan
3. Kassim Shah
4. Jafar Shah
5. Zayn al-Abidin
6. Amir Ahmad

The above list ostensibly suggests at first glance that after assuming the Imamate in 61/680, Imam Zayn al-Abidin consigned the office of the Piratan to Amir Ahmad, but its historicity is inaccessible. Since the name Amir Ahmad is followed by Imam Zayn al-Abidin in the above list, it became convenient to the fabricators to make them contemporary.

It is however much nearer to reasonable possibility that Imam Wafi Ahmad (d. 212/828) had consigned the office of the Hujjat or Pir to his son, called Ahmad. He propagated Ismaili dawat in the villages of Syria and Iran. He was succeeded to his father and assumed the title of at-Taqi (God-fearing). In Indian Ismaili literature, he is called “Pir Ahmad” or “Pir Amir Ahmad” while denoting him the Pir. He is simultaneously called “Taqi Muhammad” when referring him as an Imam. Hence, Pir Amir Ahmad was the name of Imam Taqi Muhammad, who flourished in the Dawr’i Satr, and nothing to do with the period of Ibn al-Hanafia as is wrongly mentioned in the “Satveni’ji Vel.”

It is a trenchant point to keep in mind that Pir Amir Ahmad (Imam Taqi Muhammad) died in 225/840 long after the period of Imam Zayn al-Abidin, while Ibn al-Hanafia died in 81/700. How it is possible to consider both Pir Amir Ahmad and Ibn al-Hanafia as one and the same person when they were not even contemporary ?

Imam Zayn al-Abidin returned from Damascus to Medina, while Ibn Hanafia was in Mecca. Is it possible to believe that Imam had given him the Piratan with a mandate to wage war against the enemies of Imam Hussain? Was the Piratan given merely for this purpose? Soon after the event of Kerbala, the Imam changed the policy not to take part in the politics. It was Mukhtar who emerged in history to take revenge to exploit his political interest. He declared Ibn al-Hanafia as the Mahdi and carried on the mission in his name. It is unbelievable that Imam Zayn al-Abidin had approved the cult of Mukhtar and supported his mission by appointing Ibn al-Hanafia as the Pir? In fact, Ibn al-Hanafia and Pir Amir Ahmad were different historical characters in different periods, and moreso Amir Ahmad was not the name or title of Ibn al-Hanafia.

Notwithstanding, the coinage of the term “Amir Pir” in Sind carries a different story without its least relation with “Pir Amir Ahmad” or “Ibn al-Hanafia”.

When Imam Hasan Ali Shah arrived in Sind, he held meeting with Sir Charles Napier (1782-1853), the then British political agent of Sind. This historical meeting made the Imam famous in Sind. The Muslims in lower Sind mostly of Shah Bandar and District Thatta revered the Imam as a Pir and called him the Khwajen’jo Pir. The British posted the Imam in Jerruk for guarding the route between Hyderabad and Karachi. The Imam arrived in Jerruk on March 1, 1843. The Jokia, Numeri and Kalmati tribes gathered together and attacked on the Ismailis in Jerruk led by Mir Sher Muhammad Khan on March 23, 1843. In the encounter, the enemies plundered 23 lac rupees cash amount of the Imam. Mirza Kalichbeg writes in “History of Sind” (Karachi, 1902, 2nd vol., p. 260) that Sir Charles Napier wrote letter to Mir Sher Muhammad Khan on April 7, 1843, which reads: “Chief, if you will give back to Aga Khan the plunder you took from Jerruck, and come in and make Salaam to me, I will pardon, and be your friend, and your jageers shall be respected. C.J. Napier.” Later, the amount of the Imam was recovered.

The news of the great robbery rapidly spread in Hyderabad, District Thatta and Shah Bandar, inducing the Muslims to say : “Oh! Pir (Imam Hasan Ali Shah) is a rich (Amir) person.” Gradually, the term “Amir Pir” (the rich Pir) was designated for Imam Hasan Ali Shah. The fact of the designation can be verified from the old records of Registrar of District Thatta.

Consequently, the two correlative names (Amir Pir and Pir Amir Ahmad) cropped on the surface in lower Sind. In order to distinguish the two relevant names, the Ismailis denoted the term “Amir Pir” for Imam Hasan Ali Shah, and “Pir Amir Ahmad” or “Pir Amir” was specified for the 6th Ismaili Pir. Since the fair began by the orders of Imam Hasan Ali Shah, it became known as “Amir Pir Mela” after his name.

The “Amir Pir Mela” became widespread in India, where the Ismailis of Kutchh, Kathiawar and Gujrat were unknown with the other side of the coin, and tried to correlate Ibn al-Hanafia with Pir Amir Ahmad, the 6th Pir; and constructed a layer of confusion in locating the personality of Pir Amir Ahmad. Besides, the story of Seth Mehr Ali’s dream also prompted them to cultivate few other stories. This type of coining commenced in these areas, wherefrom this art was developed. Some irresponsible writers have even wrongly gone to the extent to equate the 6th Pir Amir Ahmad with the “cave” tradition of Amir Pir, vide “Pir Padhariya Aapan’e Duar” (Bombay, 1986, pp. 99-106) by Abdul Hussain. Their literature has intricately injected wrong views into the minds of the people. Unless the modern writers know before writing the theories of disappearance in a cave, immortality of the Pir or Saint and the veneration of any location quite contrary to the Ismaili tariqah, they would have never correlated two persons. This curious formula was arbitrary, irrational and wholly impracticable and divorced from reality.

In the period of Ibn al-Hanafia, it deserves notice that the locations of Jhimpir and Kotri geographically were submerged into Indus River. It is therefore, absurd to believe the frivolous tale of the cave, sprouted out in the rock in the period of Ibn al-Hanafia.

It is worth keeping in mind that there was a long stony rock lying on the bank of the Soneri lake. It is evident from the interior walls of the cave that a small prefigured space was definitely hollowed out in the rock by a talent mind. Its size is 10x12 feet with a height of 3 ¼ feet, and none can stand or walk inside. Its interior walls are very solid. The mouth of the cave was plastered, then cemented. Afterwards, it was decorated with a silver frame, which has been removed. It is also believed in the vulgar section that the original cave exists somewhere in Arab, whose tunnel ends at Amir Pir’s location. Mr. Mohammad Hussain, the President of the Ismaili Engineers & Architects Association had visited the location in 1983 with few members of the Regional Council for Karachi and Sind. He examined the cave and submitted his conclusive survey report that the structure of the cave was artificial, not natural.

Outside the cave, a chamber or the dome (quba) was erected, whose internal height is 3 ¼ feet with the level of the cave. It could hardly accommodate 50 persons. In 1951, one another chamber to its right side was built to enlarge the space. Both chambers were partitioned by a wall, and when the wall was going to be demolished to make two chambers as one, it was seriously suggested to drop the program because the wall acted as the pillar and if it would be broken, the roof of the chambers with rock’s debris would bury the chambers. Apprehending lest the chambers without wall would cause havoc, the wall was retained and the second new chamber was marbled in 1953. One can easily judge that the legend of the Amir Pir is so fictitious that a new story was floated in exaggeration to the account of Imam Aga Ali Shah, relating that he sometimes came down from his residence on hilltop and passed his days in seclusion and worship in this marbled chamber. This is absolutely false, the purpose of which was to legitimate the legend of the cave on religious ground.

“One follower lived in Sind with deep devotion upon Amir. Once he was going in a forest, where the bandits descended upon him. They began to plunder his camels laden with merchandise. While he was being beaten with a sword, he was much fearful and lamented, exclaimed, ‘Oh! Muhammad Hanifa Amir! I keep patience with your name. Come to relieve me from the bandits. Come to help in this moment.’ The Gur at once came on horse and killed the bandits into pieces with sword. His follower became cheerful and bowed before Gur Amir. Gur also patted and showered mercy. There was a rock, where the Gur reached in a cave. The follower brought faith on him. (Gur) made him richest person. He built a dome (quba) in Sind.”

a) Gur Amir emerged from the cave upon exclamation of his Sindhi follower, where he returned. The present site of the rock having the cave faces the Soneri lake, not jungle. Granted that the jungle existed beyond the Soneri lake, where exists the old village of Sonda, near Jerruk. His coming on a horse and patting his follower indicate that his appearance was physical. It is thus unbelievable how he heard his follower’s cry at a long distance.

b) We have seen in the previous verses that Khaqan Mansur Khorasani was destined to build a dome (quba) on the cave, and then the story is curiously changed, narrating that one another person in Sind built a dome (quba) on the cave. Both are reported to have discovered the cave and built the quba. To whom credit should be given? It is curious that the name of his one follower, Khaqan Mansur is clearly mentioned, but the name of another person in Sind is not given, why? Is it not possible that the person in Sind, who built the quba would have been Seth Mehr Ali and none else, which is also ascertained in the oral tradition? It seems that his name was deliberately hidden, otherwise, the secrecy of interpolation in “Satveni’ji Vel” would have been exposed in the period of the composer.

c) Curiously, this verse equates Muhammad Hanif and Amir as One Person, giving them a joint name of “Muhammad Hanifa Amir.” To crown him as a Pir, the word Satgur Amir is applied in the previous 29th verse and Gur Amir in this 30th verse. This is an imprudent composition. Hence, the dominant force of the legendary accounts gave birth of the false tales, making Ibn al-Hanafia and Amir Ahmad as one character. Since Amir Ahmad was the 6th Pir, therefore, his Piratan and historicity are shifted skillfully to the account of Ibn al-Hanafia in the above verse. The composer aimed to brush aside the personality of Pir Amir Ahmad.

d) He implored for help from Amir. Was the name Muhammad Hanifa Amir famous in those days among the vulgar section of Sind? If so, his association must be with the Kaysania sect.

e) We have seen in the above 24th verse that Ibn al-Hanafia was commanded in the Divine inspiration not to kill any more till Judgment Day, but here the Divine order is disobeyed, where the bandits, the tyrants are shown to be killed. Secondly, his purpose to remain in cave was only to take rest till the Judgment Day, then why he disturbed his rest and came out of the cave for the rescue of his follower? The composer put an imprint on the people that he was a rescuer and saviour !

f) Making vow and become rich indicates to conquer the hearts of the poor people in lower Sind. In those days, the people were down trodden in economical and social fields. The poverty and illiteracy of the people impelled them to improve their economical condition by simple means. Thus, the poor class thought the making of vow in Amir Pir’s cave an easy means to become rich. The largest number of the pilgrims was those who sought financial and material prosperity. Next in line were those who suffered from various ailments. Besides these the other objectives were blessing for a child, better treatment from in-laws, improvements in domestic relations, success in business enterprises, protection from epidemics, etc.

g) Asserting Ibn al-Hanafia immortal as well as his disappearance in the cave is the belief of the Kaysania sect, and nothing to do with the Ismaili faith.

In sum, it was projected purposely to drag the Ismailis to the venue of immaterial practice. Firstly, it was implemented in Multan in the mausoleum of Pir Shams, but failed. The Ismailis were given one another taste of veneration next in Sind, which was not foiled like in Multan. The articulator borrowed the distorted theory of the concealment of Ibn al-Hanafia from the Kaysania sect. Ibn al-Hanafia was not impressive figure on religious ground among the Indian Ismailis, it was therefore necessary to crown him with the office of the Piratan, and for implication, the historicity of the 6th Ismaili Pir Amir Ahmad was sacrificed. In other words, the historicity of Pir Amir Ahmad was brushed aside. The amalgamation of two theories was meant to magnify Ibn al-Hanafia, which influenced the Ismailis in lower Sind to some extent. In order to convince the Ismailis of Kutchh, Kathiawar and Gujrat, few supporting verses were composed in this context and inserted in the “Satveni’ji Vel.” Hence, a hotchpotch dish was prepared with the mixture of illusive bits and shreds to attract the Indian Ismailis towards the reverence of the cave under the shadow of religion.

Even taking for granted for a while that the “Satveni’ji Vel” was composed by Syed Nur Muhammad Shah between 1516 and 1520 including above quoted four verses, then why the story of the cave in Sind remained in obscurity for over two hundred years and was only destined to Seth Mehr Ali to discover and disclose it? During these two hundred years, no Ismaili Pir or Vakil or any renowned person had ever referred to it. It is crystal clear that the above verses were added after two hundred years.

“Amir himself dwelt in a mountain and none knew his whereabouts. One ruler of Khorasan revered Satgur Amir. His name was Khaqan Mansur. He traced out every place and thought of Amir’s whereabouts. He loitered everywhere in his search and went into the jungle with an army, where he found rocks everywhere. He arrived as far as Jhimpir (Jinjir) and saw a cave in a rock, whereon was written: “Satgur Amir has gone inside, none is ordered to enter it.” (Finding his entry thus barred), Mansur stood there, delighting in heart. He built a dome (quba) on it, and earned (fame of) his name in the world. He had no issue and vowed for. One who vows in the dome, his wishes will be accepted. All come to this location, where their wishes are accomplished.”

a) The heading of the previous 23rd verse is “Muhammad Hanif’ki Tasanif” while the heading of 29th verse is “Tasanif Amir’ki.” Here it is clearly admitted that both Muhammad Hanif (Ibn al-Hanafia) and Amir were two different persons.

b) In the light of the accessible sources at our disposal, no ruler bearing the name “Khaqan Mansur” is traceable in the history of Khorasan. It seems a fictitious name.

c) It claims that Amir went to an unknown place. His follower, Khaqan Mansur wandered in his search from Khorasan to Sind and found a cave at Jhimpir, where he saw a written instruction that, “Satgur Amir has gone inside, none is ordered to enter it.” It means he found only one cave between Khorasan and Sind and none else, and the composer of the verses made him to reach as far as Jhimpir. Besides he found the whereabouts of Satgur Amir, not Ibn al-Hanafia. Granted that he found an instruction on the cave, it should have been written in Sindhi for the people of Sind, not in Arabic or Persian. If so, how he read it? Satgur Amir had gone in cave to take rest in seclusion till the Judgment Day, and not to fulfill the vows of the needy people. Firstly, the purpose was to take rest, and then it changed into the vows. How the composer used his skill to translate his motif?

What was the reason of the written instruction on a cave? Who has written and why? Is not such instruction valid in present day? Why it is not seen today? Who had removed it? It implies that Khaqan Mansur did not enter the cave due to restriction. This is pretty good technique to make the venerators fearful psychologically, and restrict them to the extent of the cave. Contrary to it, there are many persons in present age, who have entered the cave and found there nothing but a small stony cellar of hardly two to three yards in the rock, and nothing happened to them. It appears that the modern pilgrims seem to have not read above instruction given in the “Satveni’ji Vel,” otherwise they would have installed similar words engraved on marble plaque at the entrance of the cave.

d) Khaqan Mansur obviously had not seen Satgur Amir, but brought faith merely upon the written instruction. The composer designed a dramatic tale in the name of Khaqan Mansur, exhorting the people to have a blind trust like him.

e) The key point to draw attention in the above verse is the name “Jhimpir” (Jinjir). The old persons in Jhimpir relate that in the period of the Kalhora rule (1737-1782) in Sind, one unknown English tourist, named Jim or Jem visited on camel in their area from Kotri. He joined the annual Hindu fair on February 18 in the temple of Shiva. He was a generous and deeply touched with the local poverty. He returned to Kotri and brought huge grains and clothes laden on camels for the poor. He made several trips in this context. The local people venerated him as if a Pir and called him “Jim Pir or “Jempeer.” This location thus became known as Jhimpir after his name.

Hence, the coinage of the name “Jhimpir” came into existence during 18th century. How this word appeared in the “Sateveni’ji Vel” of 16th century? Nothing prevent us in concluding that the above verses are forged, fabricated and were included at the end of the 18th century.

f) The phrase, “One who vows in the dome (quba), his wishes will be accepted. All come to this location, where their wishes are fulfilled” is the principal objective of the composer to summon the illiterate people for the veneration of the cave.

“When he fought with the infidels, he killed them by his own hand. On that moment, he received a Divine inspiration: ‘How long will you fight for religion? Leave the infidels now alone and take rest in any place. You have conquered all countries including Damascus. You now leave and kill them during the Judgment Day. If you will kill them now, the world population will be decreased, and there will be no infidel in the world. If the infidels are reduced, how the affairs of the world will be run? How the believers will know the spiritual status? Believers achieve the spiritual status after facing the infidels because the eternal grade is gained after toleration of the grief.’”

a) It claims that he alone killed the infidels and conquered many lands including Damascus, which is also a bombastic story bereft of historical value. Damascus was the capital of the Umayyads, which fell in 132/750, while Ibn al-Hanafia died in 81/700. One can gleaned from the sources of Abu Mikhnaf (d. 157/774), Waqidi (d. 207/822), Baladhuri (d. 279/892), Yaqubi (d. 284/898), Tabari (d. 310/922), Atham al-Kufi al-Kindi (d. 314/926), etc. that Ibn al-Hanafia never took revenge of Imam Hussain’s blood from the Kuffans and the Umayyads, nor he ever came in Kufa, but remained in Mecca till death.

b) It further indicates that he left the remaining infidels and took rest, lasting till the Judgment Day as per Divine order. It also exhorts that the remaining infidels would be killed in Judgment Day by him, not by God. The revenge of Imam Hussain’s blood was assigned to him, half infidels were executed in the material world and remaining in immaterial world. Is it believable? While taking this story in Islamic perception, it is quite improbable that a human being in his physical state will kill the immaterial beings with a physical sword in Judgment Day? This is a baseless story in its implications.

c) It claims that God commanded him not to kill all the infidels, otherwise the world population would be decreased. The enemies of Imam Hussain were in Iraq and Syria, why the composer of the verse made him to kill the infidels of other countries?

“He was the 6th Pir. God invested him extraordinary prowess. He took revenge of the religion. He killed the infidels and tyrants and became a gazi. He led a piety life in the world and became an immortal till the Judgment Day. He killed forty thousand infidels and removed infidelity in the world. He himself conquered and raised a rule over the world. This very person (Muhammad Hanif or Ibn al-Hanafia) came in the world. His mother was Bibi Hanifa, the wife of Hazrat Ali and (he) Muhammad Hanif was from their family. He killed the infidels everywhere and became a devout gazi. Many people submitted, known as the believers of the Satpanth.”

a) Ibn al-Hanifa is shown as the 6th Pir, which is historically incorrect. It does not mention, which Imam had consigned him the office of the Pir? He was neither given the Piratan nor worked for the religious cause. The so called Piratan of Ibn al-Hanafia nowhere is mentioned even in the authorized literature of the ginans.

b) It indicates that Ibn al-Hanafia took “revenge of religion” from the infidels and tyrants. Who were the infidels and tyrants? Apparently, it refers to the Kuffans and the Umayyads. It claims that he had taken revenge from forty thousand infidels and removed infidelity in the world. Between the event of Kerbala in 61/680 and his death in 81/700, there was a period of twenty years, in which he executed not a single person. The removal of infidelity in the world is therefore curious and moreso is his immortality till the Judgment Day, which is illogical and irrational story. Such folklore cannot adulterate the face of history in the light of accessible sources.

For illustration, when an Arab leader Tarmah bin Adi found Imam Hussain in the plight at Kerbala, who was going home after pilgrimage came to the Imam and said, “O’ son of the Prophet! The Kuffans have proved faithless and disloyal. Come with me and I will take you to my tribe beyond those mountains. We have defended ourselves against the old tyrants of Hira Ghassan kingdoms and now will defend you.” Imam Hussain declined his offer. Keeping it in mind, it ensues that an Arab chief had offered to help Imam Hussain, but Ibn al-Hanafia did not come in Kerbala to help Imam Hussain. How it can be believed that he had come in Kufa after Kerbala event to take revenge from the Kuffans and took field against the Umayyads? He had been in Mecca before and after the tragic event of Kerbala, and never visited Kufa or Damascus. There is also no historical evidence that he had ever met Imam Zayn al-Abidin in Medina after the event of Kerbala.

c) It also claims that he alone made conquest and established his sovereignty in the world. Firstly, there is no indication of his fantastic military operations. He was not even the hakim or governor of any village, town or city in Arab, therefore, the question of his becoming the ruler of the world does not arise.

d) The phrase, “Many people submitted, known as the believers of the Satpanth” refers to the followers of a petty sect, known as the Kaysania, which existed after the death of Ibn al-Hanafia. It is also noticeable that the composer misrepresented the followers of the Kaysania sect as the believers of the Satpanth!

The Satpanth Literature or the Ginans were composed by 9 Ismaili Pirs and 22 Syeds during their mission in Indian subcontinent. The ginans were preserved in different manuscripts. Mukhi Laljibhai Devraj (1842-1930) collected the old manuscripts in different places. It was difficult to judge the authenticity of each ginan a hundred years ago due to the lack of the competent scholars. He published the ginans in his printing press in Bombay with a view that if any published text was found irrelevant or doubtful, it would be never reprinted. During the process of printing, however, some compositions were found doubtful, such as the “Chhatris Krodi,” “Dashtari Gayatri,” “Chetamani of Pir Imam Shah” etc., which were never published. The “Satveni’ji Vel” by Syed Nur Muhammad Shah (d. 940/1534) was however published without prior testing of its Ismaili root. Mukhi Laljibhai however appealed the Ismailis through his monthly magazine, “Ismaili Satpanth Prakash” (April 12, 1918) to draw his attention the errors, discrepancies or doubtfulness in the ginans he had published from his Khoja Sindhi Printing Press. On this juncture, the authenticity of the “Satveni’ji Vel” was challenged with evidences, which were minutely examined and resolved not to publish it next time. The inventory of its evidences is not known except that “Satveni’ji Vel” contained non-Ismaili elements and suffered with interpolation.

Suppose a Shi’ite author brings forth a book on the history of the twelve Imams, it has nothing to do with Ismailism. Since it contained the history of Hazrat Ali to Imam Jafar Sadik, the Ismailis will never ignore and refer it for the study. Correspondingly, the “Satveni’ji Vel” of Syed Muhammad Shah also advocates equal purpose, wherein the cursory sketch of the history of the Ismaili Imams and Pirs is given; therefore, the Ismaili scholars refer it for their study. This is the reason that “Satveni’ji Vel” never became a standard text in Ismaili literature, and is hardly recited in the Jamatkhana.

Syed Nur Muhammad Shah, the son of Syed Imam Shah and the founder of the Imam Shahi sect had compiled “Satveni’ji Vel” most probably between 922/1516 and 926/1520, containing 100 verses. Its manuscript was in private collection of the Imam Shahis in Pirana (about 10 miles from Ahmedabad), where many fabricated verses were included. One old manuscript of 1890 contained 150 verses. It implies that the original text was adulterated by inclusion of later verses. Mukhi Laljibhai Devraj had gone to Ahmedabad in search of old manuscripts in about 1905, where he unearthed the manuscript of the “Satveni’ji Vel” consisted of 150 verses. He brought it in Bombay and published in the Khojki script in 1906. Patel Laljibhai Nanjibhai, the follower of the Imam Shahi sect reproduced the same text into Gujrati, entitled “Motti Satveni’ni Vel” in 1960 in Ahmedabad.

In 1978, its one rare manuscript was discovered in Buj, Kutchh. It was written in 1780, containing 100 verses. Comparing it with the above printed texts, it appears that 50 verses were incorporated at the end of the 18th century. The extra verses given in the printed texts, such as 23-24, 28-33, 75, 78-93, 97-100, 115-135 (total 50 verses) are not found in the oldest manuscript of 1780. It means that the interpolation would have taken place after 1780.

Scrutiny of the other accessible records also throws a flood of light that the original feature of the text (100 verses) was affected with the addition of 50 new verses. The anonymous composer hampered and interpolated the imaginary verses with his own sense of propriety. The Russian scholar W. Ivanow also reckoned it a “modern work.” Thus, in the later 50 verses, the stories of Amir Pir and Muhammad Hanif (Ibn al-Hanafia) are grossly misrepresented and highlighted skillfully. It is given in four places (verse nos. 23, 24, 29 & 30) under different headings, whose gist is given below with comments:-