“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:-

Muhammad Hanafia was born in 11/632. His name was Muhammad Akbar, surnamed Abul Kassim, known as Ibn al-Hanafia. He was the son of Hazrat Ali and his mother was Khawla bint Jafar bin Qais al-Hanafia.

After the event of Kerbala, Mukhtar Thaqafi rose in Kufa against the Umayyad to take revenge of Imam Hussain’s blood. He turned to Imam Zayn al-Abidin to seek his support. Baladhuri (d. 279/892) writes in “Ansab al-Ashraf” (5th vol., p. 272) that, “Mukhtar wrote to Zayn al-Abidin to show his loyalty to him, asking if he could rally the Kuffans for him. He sent with the letter a large sum of money. Zayn al-Abidin refused this offer and declared Mukhtar publicly to be a liar who was trying to exploit the cause of Ahl al-Bayt for his own interests.” Ibn Sa’d (d. 230/845) also writes in “Kitab al-Tabaqat” (5th vol., p. 213) that, “Imam Zayn al-Abidin had publicly denounced Mukhtar’s mission.” Mukhtar lost all hopes of winning Imam Zayn al-Abidin; he then turned to Ibn al-Hanafia in Mecca, the third son of Hazrat Ali from a Hanafite woman. On his part, Ibn al-Hanafia did not repudiate Mukhtar’s propaganda for his Imamate and Messianic role; he nevertheless, maintained a non-committal attitude and never openly raised his claims to the heritage of Imam Hussain. Baladhuri (5th vol., p. 218) writes that, “Ibn al-Hanafia gave Mukhtar only a non-committal reply. He neither approved nor disapproved of Mukhtar’s intention to avenge Imam Hussain, and only warned him against bloodshed.” In the event, however, the hesitation and political inactivity of Ibn al-Hanafia induced Mukhtar more and more to exploit his name for his own interest. In Kufa, Mukhtar propagated that Ibn al-Hanafia was an awaited Mahdi, and he was his minister (vizir) and commander (amir). It is curious that Ibn al-Hanafia did not refute the propaganda of Mukhtar.

Mukhtar mustered large following around him, propagating the Messianic role of Ibn al-Hanafia and captured Kufa. Ibn Sa’d (4th vol., p. 15) writes that Ibn al-Hanafia once thought of going to Kufa to join his over-energetic agent Mukhtar. This would by no means have suited Mukhtar’s purpose, who was well aware of the advantage of professing to act for a master who was at a distance. He therefore let it be known that the Mahdi (Ibn al-Hanafia) was to be distinguished by the following test: if any one struck him with the sword in the street, the weapon would be unable to penetrate the Mahdi’s flesh, and would effect no injury. Ibn al-Hanafia naturally regarded this as a threat that if he came to Kufa he would be assassinated, whence he kept away, and never visited Kufa till death.

In the meantime, the circumstances changed when Abdullah bin Zubayr proclaimed himself caliph in 64/683 in Mecca. Ibn al-Hanafia refused to pay homage to Abdullah bin Zubayr in Mecca. In 66/685, Abdullah bin Zubayr detained Ibn al-Hanafia and his family and threatened them with death if they did not pay homage within a specific time. Ibn al-Hanafia wrote letter to Mukhtar, apprising him of his perilous condition. Mukhtar marshaled out four thousand soldiers and managed to liberate Ibn al-Hanafia, who left Mecca for Taif. Mukhtar was killed in 67/687 in an another encounter with Musab bin Zubayr in Kufa, while Ibn al-Hanafia died in 81/700 at the age of about 70 years, and was buried in Mecca.

Abu Hashim, the eldest son of Ibn al-Hanafia however continued the mission of Mukhtar, and his followers became known as the Kaysanias, who believed Ibn al-Hanafia as the successor of Hazrat Ali. Abu Hashim was poisoned by the Umayyad caliph Hisham in 99/718. Before his death, he quickly rushed to Humayma, and handed over his right to the caliphate and charge of the Kaysania sect to Muhammad bin Ali, the leader of the growing Abbasid power as he had no male issue.

The followers of the Kaysania also held Ibn al-Hanafia as their Imam Mahdi and believed in his concealment and immortality. The fact is that he had died his natural death. The famous Umayyad poet, Kuthayyir bin Abd Rehman Azza (24-105/644-723) however was first to propagate that Ibn al-Hanafia was alive on the Mount Radwah, west of Medina that he was being guarded by a lion and a tiger, and that he had two rich springs of water and honey, and that he would reappear to fill the earth with justice, vide his “Diwan” (ed. By Ihsan Abbas, Beirut, 1971). In sum, the Kaysania sect held the doctrine of raja (the return to life of some of the dead before the resurrection). Syed Himyari, one of the poets of Kaysania sect describes that, “Ibn al-Hanafia had not tasted death nor would taste it until he had led his hosts to victory. The place of his retirement was Mount Radwah, where food is miraculously supplied him, and he had a society of angels, besides that of lions and panthers.” Shaharastani writes that, “This is the first appearance of the Shi’ite doctrine of concealment and return from concealment.”

Kashi also records a story about two men from the entourage of Imam Jafar Sadik, viz. as-Sarraj and Hammad bin Isa, who were known to believe that Ibn al-Hanafia was still alive. Imam Jafar Sadik reproached them and pointed out that Ibn al-Hanafia was seen being buried, and his property had been divided and his widow had remarried.

Undoubtedly, Ibn al-Hanafia neither came to help Imam Hussain during the terrible sufferings in Kerbala nor took revenge from a single person thereafter. He passed his peaceful life in Mecca and Taif, where he died. It is possible that the Sunni circle would have charged, why he did not come to help his brother, Imam Hussain in Kerbala? In order to cover it, the followers of the Kaysania sect had cultivated stories that he took revenge from the Kuffans, making it flooded with blood to such extent that his horse swam in it. These stories are not historical but fictitious. The reason for his concealment neither is known nor understood. Since the story of his revenge from the Kuffans and the Umayyads is quite incorrect and imaginary, the second story of his concealment becomes itself cripple and null.

The above details indicate that the concealment of Ibn al-Hanafia was not historical, but he met a natural death. In addition, his name was Ibn al-Hanafia, not Amir Hamza, Amir Pir or Pir Amir Ahmad. It has been also admitted that he was not granted the office of the Hujjat or Pir. The oral tradition however claims that there is a cave of Ibn al-Hanafia at the location 10 km from Jhimpir.

Seth Mehr Ali was an origin of Mulla Katiar in lower Sind. His father Megji belonged to Buj, Kutchh and migrated towards Ramki Bazar, Badin and then settled in Mulla Katiar. He was an influential merchant during the Kalhora (1737-1782) and Talpur (1782-1843) rules in Sind. It is related that he visited Iran in the period of Imam Abul Hasan Ali (1143-1206/1730-1792) and Imam Khalilullah (1206-1233/1792-1817). Seth Mehr Ali was popular not only in Sind, but also in Punjab, Kutchh and other parts of India. In Sind, he also hosted the Ismailis, who were going to Iran for the didar of the Imam.

The second phase of Seth Mehr Ali’s life was quite different from his early life, which sounds his great leaning towards the doctrine of the Kaysania sect. In spite of the diversity in the oral traditions, there is a common story that Seth Mehr Ali had visited Bombay and then proceeded to Pirana, and came into the contact of the Kaka (headman) of the Imam Shahi sect, named Syed Sharif (d. 1209/1795). This contact would have created his strong proclivity towards the veneration of the shrines. Soon after his return, he visited Multan and became the disciple of Makhdum Safdar Ali alias Jiwan Shah, the custodian of the mausoleum of Pir Shams. This contact prompted him to rebuild the mausoleum of Pir Shams. A sum of Rs. 75,000 was spent in its renovation, which he procured through donation in Sind in 1194/1779. He posed himself as a Syed to win the hearts of the people. This is the reason that he is called Syed Mehr Ali in “Tawarikh-i Zila’e Multan” (Lahore, 1884, p. 85) by Munshi Hukam Chand and “Multan : History and Architecture” (Islamabad, 1983, p. 206) by Dr. Ahmad Nabi Khan.

He intended that the mausoleum should be crowded on the first Friday after 15th Shaban, therefore, he invited the local Shi’ites and the Ismailis of Sadiqabad, Uchh Sharif and Sind, but his objective was foiled. The Shi’ites venerated it and took its possession, but it did not descend below the throats of the Ismailis, who made no response to it.

He did not retreated in his pursuit and operated its next launching on the bank of the Soneri lake near Jhimpir, Sind where he is supposed to have found a cave of Ibn al-Hanafia on the basis of his so called dream. This time he failed to raise funds in Sind, so he visited Karachi and collected Rs. 25,000. He built a dome (quba) on the cave, few houses and musafarkhana of stone and lime. Culling up the fragment of the traditions, it is purported that in accomplishing his mission with maximum impact, he invited the Shi’ites of lower Sind at first. Since the Shi’ites believed in the disappearance of their 12th Imam Mahdi in a cave of Samarra, the story of Ibn al-Hanafia’s cave easily touched to their minds. After mustering gathering of the Shi’ites, he first invited those Ismailis who had close family ties with the Shi’ites. The Ismaili pilgrims were comparatively less; he then invited other Ismailis in Karachi and interior Sind by giving example of that small number of the Ismailis who were visiting. In short, he made the present location of Amir Pir the venue of vows.

Seth Mehr Ali could not attract Ismaili pilgrims as more as he expected. The Shi’ites not only came for veneration, but also used the location as their graveyard. Soon after his death, the Ismailis began to assemble at large number. Railway line from Karachi to Kotri was open for traffic on May 13, 1861. It provided facility to the Ismailis of Karachi to visit Amir Pir by train. They landed at Jhimpir station and then traveled in the wheeled carriages. It caused the Ismaili foothold, making the Shi’ites visit comparatively less. The Ismailis removed the amulets (taveez), wooden horse (duldul) and painted pictures on the walls of the cave, and placed there the photos of the Imams.

It has been also learnt from the old persons of Mirpur Sakaro jamat that once a group of the local Shi’ites failed in the deliberations with the Ismailis on the topic of the disappearance of their 12th Imam Mahdi. Thus, they visited the cave of Amir Pir and invited the Ismailis to join them. When they succeeded to bring the Ismailis in sizeable number, they gradually discontinued to attend. It paved a way to the Ismaili dominance on the cave. On this juncture, the Shi’ites became capable to respond to the Ismailis that they too believed in the disappearance of Ibn al-Hanafia in a cave like their 12th Imam Mahdi. If the story carries truth, we would say that the tradition of Amir Pir was an incidental. Soon afterwards, the low class Hindus consisting of Bhils, Meghwars, Kohis, Gurgalas, Oads etc., also visited the location for fulfillment of their vows. Among other visitors, the followers of the Imam Shahi sect were prominent, who followed the mix rituals of Islam and Hinduism.

So far, the Ismailis visited informally for fulfillment of their vows, sometimes regularly or casually. The concept of the Mela (fair) however was not yet created.

It is a matter to ponder that Seth Mehr Ali did not launch his plan in the shrines of Pir Sadruddin or Pir Hasan Kabiruddin in Uchh Sharif. It may be possible that Uchh Sharif was not so ideal to muster the gatherings of the Shi’ites and the Ismailis.

Seth Mehr Ali passed rest of his life in the village of Shah Kapoor, near Tando Muhammad Khan, where he was a wholesale grain dealer, and a large supplier of eggs to the British soldiers. Seth Mehr Ali either assumed the title of the Mukhi or Varas or his disciples had identified him as such. There is not a single evidence of his services as the Mukhi of any Jamatkhana in lower Sind. He died in Shah Kapoor and was buried in the location of Amir Pir.

There are many old graves near the cave, but not of Amir Pir. The old record reveals that the original word for the fair was Jhimpir Mela, then Amir Pir Mela, but the words dargha, a’astana or khanaqah were never attached to it. These three later terms are found in different plaques in Amir Pir, contradicting with one another. The word dargha means a place where one is enshrined, and a’astana refers to a particular spot where the saint had stayed, while khanaqah is a Sufic term for their cloister. It is a unique example of the contradictions as none of these terms suits to Amir Pir. One who visits the cave; he says that he came to pay salam to the dargha. Here the term salam refers to the fatiha, which is offered for the dead, not for the concealed one.

[acidfree:10834]
The Ismailis in the province of Sind, Pakistan celebrate Amir Pir Mela (fair of Amir Pir) once a year in November. At the distance of 123 km from Karachi and 10 km from Jhimpir to the east on the bank of the Kalari Lake lies the location of Amir Pir. The historical background of Amir Pir is shrouded in mist and whirled round the grip of oral and fictitious traditions, based on illusive bits and shreds. Many stories and contrive superstitious tales tinged with miracles have been invented to give vent to credulous stories. In short, the story tellers circulated among the people a host of tales fabricated in exaggeration according to their genius. E.P Delhoste visited the location on February 10, 1839 and admitted that its story was involved in obscurity (vide “Memoirs on Sind,” Karachi, 1979, 1st vol., p. 252). Its source of information has been taken on its face value without verification of the truth thereof. But history, as distinct from fiction, proves otherwise. If one listens to what the common people say, he is at once in an enchanted world of the strangest legends. Reports based on mere folklore, can never be history.

[acidfree:10835]

There is a famous oral tradition, largely mythological in character that a certain Seth Mehr Ali of Mulla Katiar, Sind had once dreamt and saw Amir Hamza ( a name found in the tradition for Muhammad Hanafia or Ibn al-Hanafia) visiting Sind through a cave near Jhimpir. He was also inspired in the dream that the cave was situated on the bank of Soneri Lake (now Kalari Lake by combining Soneri and Kinjar Lakes). He traveled in search of the hidden cave. He first came across a cave on Jam Tamachi Fort, which is now at a small distance of the north-east of the Amir Pir. He stayed there few days in veneration and concluded that it was not that very cave. He then roamed around the Soneri Lake and ultimately discovered the cave inside the rock lying at Amir Pir. Seth Mehr Ali through premonitions in his dream was directed to raise a dome (quba) over the cave, which he did. He fixed 14th Shaban the date of visiting the location.

Following questions emerged while scanning the above tradition :-

1. It indicates that there was only a cave, not the grave of Amir Pir. The “Gazetteer of the Province of Sind” (Bombay, 1927, p. 42) also admits that, “The saint is not, however, buried in the mausoleum of Amir Pir.”

2. The date of 14th Shaban (Shab-e Bharat) clearly suggests a non-Ismaili influence in the location.

3. After the event of Kerbala, many sub-sects in Shi’ite sprang in Arab, and most of them held belief in the disappearance of their masters. The Shia Ismaili Muslims never believed the doctrine of concealment. Ibn al-Hanafia’s concealment in the cave claimed in the above tradition denotes the belief of the Kaysania sect.

4. The above oral tradition is built merely on the edifice of a dream, which cannot be reckoned as historical evidence.