09. Verse 30th ( Mojiza Amirâ€™ka )
â€œOne 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, â€˜Oh! Muhammad Hanifa Amir! I keep patience with your name. Come to relieve me from the bandits. Come to help in this moment.â€™ 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.â€
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 followerâ€™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 â€œSatveniâ€™ji Velâ€ 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 â€œMuhammad Hanifa Amir.â€ 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 Pirâ€™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 â€œSatveniâ€™ji Vel.â€ 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 â€œSatveniâ€™ji Velâ€ 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.