S. R. Faruqi:

The foundation of this theme is a [Persian] verse by Nazim Harvi:

'If Nazim became your slave, then there was no harm to him,
To sell oneself into your hands is the purchasing of Yusuf.'

Undoubtedly Nazim used such a powerful metaphor that it's impossible to equal it. But Mir has brought out a new idea. In the first line, qadr-o-qīmat has two meanings: (1) honor, rank; (2) value, price. Then, the insha'iyah style is fine too.

There are also two meanings for hogī : (1) possibility-- that is, what value can be any greater than this, or will be?; (2) belief-- that is, no value greater than this is possible.

Then, by making both worlds the lovers of the beloved, Mir has broadened the theme. (If this aspect is brought to the fore, then the verse can be taken as in praise of the Prophet [naʿtiyah].

Mir's second line too can be insha'iyah-- that is, oh Mir, sell yourself into the hands of her whose buyers are the two worlds. In this case the 'mood' becomes a bit less, because selling is dependent on the wish of the buyer, so that we cannot of our own will sell ourself into her hands.

Prof. Nisar Ahmad Faruqi held the view that in the present verse [the proper reading] was bikāʾū [instead of lagāʾo] and its meaning was 'something that is sold'. But with that pronunciation, the rhyme changes-- for which there's obviously no need; and from a grammatical point of view too, the phrase us ke hāth tum bikāʾū (that is, the buyer) is not complete unless one says us ke hāth tum bikāʾū ban jāʾo or bano . Although indeed, this view of the late Nisar Ahmad Faruqi is certainly worth thinking about, for in this verse there can be an allusion to sūrah-e taubah [Chapter 9 of the Qur'an] verse 111: 'God has purchased of the Believers / Their persons and their goods; / For theirs (in return) / Is the Garden (of Paradise)' [trans. by A. Yusuf Ali].

FWP:

SETS
MOTIFS == COMMERCE
NAMES
TERMS

Note for grammar fans: Probably Nisar Ahmad Faruqi was made uneasy by the transitivity of lagāʾo , and who could blame him? As is clear from the definitions above, hāth lagānā would usually take ko , and its primary range of meanings would be concerned with touching, hitting, etc. By contrast, the intransitive hāth lagnā would take ke , and would be concerned with coming to hand or coming into someone's hands. What we have in this verse feels like an uneasy hybrid. But then, SRF doesn't complain about it, so there must be sufficient idiomatic wiggle room in there somewhere. Perhaps we're meant to think of an implicit apne ko , to make it something like 'give yourself into her hands'-- or, to accord with the commercial wordplay, 'sell yourself into her hands'.