CHAPTER I
The Religious Origin of the Yezidis
The origin of the devil-worshippers has been the subject of much controversy; but aside from an expression of views, no satisfactory solution of the problem has as yet been reached. The different theories which have been advanced may be classified under four general heads: The Myth of the Yezidis themselves; the tradition of Eastern Christians; the dogmatic idea of the Mohammedan scholars; and the speculative theory of the western orientalists.
I
The Yezidi Myth
The Myth of the Yezidis concerning their origin may be derived from three different sources: from their sacred book, from the appendix of the manuscript, and from actual conversation of travellers with them or with natives dwelling among them. One noticeable fact is that this tradition assumes the religion of the sect as existing long before the time of their chief saint, Šeiḫ ‘Adî. Al-Jilwah begins with the statement that Melek Ṭâ´ûs sent his servant, i. e., the Yezidis, that they might not go astray. Starting from this assumption, the writer of the revealed book goes on to trace the origin of the “elect” to the very beginning of human history. He asserts that from the start God created them as a peculiar people of ‘Azazil, i. e., Melek-Ṭâ´ûs. In the main, this idea finds expression in the oral traditions. But here we have a mass of material so clouded by superstition and ignorance that it is next to impossible to come to any conclusion as to the history of this interesting people. One point the myth repeatedly emphasizes, as an explanation of the origin of the sect, is that it was descended from Adam alone; while the other sects were descended from Adam and Eve. For this reason, the same tradition implies, the Yezidis are nobler than the others. But how they have come to be such unique descendants is a question not easily answered. One account has it that when Adam and Eve disputed as to the generation of the human race, each claiming to be the sole begetter of the race, they finally agreed to put their seed in separate jars and seal them with their own seals. After nine months they opened the jars, and in Adam’s jar they found two children, a male and a female. From these two the Yezidis were descended. Another explanation is that from Adam’s essence was born Šeher bn Jebr, of whom nothing is known; and of him, a separate community, which is the sect of Melek Ṭâ´ûs. We have, moreover, the tradition that the Yezidis are descendants of a son born to Adam of his spittle. Now whether this son be identical with Šeher bn Jebr is not certain. Writing in one of the oriental periodicals, an eastern scholar quotes a Yezidi šeiḫ in a statement which seems to corroborate the tradition that the Yezidis are a noble progeny of Adam; but the quotation differs from the instance previously cited in stating that the quarrel which took place between Adam and Eve led to their separation to places distant from each other a journey of forty days.71 There, it is said, Adam miraculously gave birth to a son. Distressed by this incident, Eve asked God that she might find favor in her husband’s eyes by giving birth to a child. Thereupon, it continues, she begot a very pretty daughter. Attracted by her beauty, Adam married her to his son. Now, the Yezidis, we are told, are the blessed seed of these two children.72
Not only when the tradition, tracing the origin of the Yezidis as a race, asserts that, as a religious body, they come from a very ancient time; but also when it speaks of them as a nation, it points out their antiquity. On this latter, as well as on the former point, their book and their oral tradition agree. The Yezidis are said to have sprung from a noble personage, the King of Peace, whose name was Na-‘umi, but whom they now call Melek-Miran.73 The rest of mankind, however, are from the seed of Ham, who mocked his father. Whom they signified by Na-‘umi or Miran it is hard to say; but it is likely that they regard him as one of the other two sons of Noah. They claim also that the ancient Assyrian kings were members of their race, and that some of the Persian, Roman and Jewish kings were appointed for them by Melek Ṭâ´ûs. They likewise seem to trace their origin to the prophets and other personages of the Old Testament; as Seth, Enoch, Noah, etc. Their religion furthermore, they assert, antedates Christ.74
There is still another tradition that traces the devil-worshippers to a different origin. I refer to the statement which Masehaf Reš makes regarding Mu‘awiya, Mohammed’s servant.75 Mu‘awiya was asked by his master to shave his head. While performing the duty, he cut the prophet’s scalp, and began to lick the bleeding spot. When he was told that this act would result in his giving birth to a nation which would oppose the followers of his master, Mu‘awiya declared that he would not marry. He was afterwards, however, bitten by a serpent, and was told that he would die unless he married. He therefore consented to marry, but chose an old woman in order not to have children. But she miraculously became a young woman of twenty-five. And from her the God Yezid was born. The story, of course, is a myth, and it is of such a nature that no historic fact can be derived from it. It is further complicated by the fact that this Yezid is identified with Melek Ṭâ´ûs; and, in another myth, is represented in form as being half angel and half man and as remaining a bachelor long after the marriage of Adam. He was, however, finally possessed of a desire to marry, and, unable to marry a mortal’s daughter, being himself half angel, sought the assistance of Melek Ṭâ´ûs, who presented to him an ḥouri, and from this union there sprang a pious people, the Yezidis.
But the devil-worshippers have still another story, which goes to show that Yezid bn Mu‘awiya is not their founder. This myth asserts that they are the progeny of Adam’s son who was married to Eve’s daughter; that the descendants continued worshipping God and Melek Ṭâ´ûs without bringing a foreign element into their religion; and that, at first, the sect did not bear the name Yezidis, which, in their own opinion, is a comparatively new appellative. As to how they came to be called by this new name, it is explained that when, in the course of time, some corruption entered the Yezidi religion, there arose a certain Calif by the name of Yezid who wrought miracles. Since then, his followers have been called Yezidis. This Yezid, it is said, is the son of Mu‘awiya bn Sufian, and his mother was of Christian origin. To accomplish his desire, bn Mu‘awiya went to Šeiḫ ‘Adi, who was a learned and devout but cunning person, and had instituted a religious innovation. Yezid, the tradition continues, learned ‘Adi’s religion and taught it to his followers; and, from that time on, the sect came to be called after him.76 But while some, considering this legend as authoritative, venerate the man bearing the name, others deny all connection with him.77
The testimony of some travellers offers another explanation of the origin of the sect in question, an account which has perhaps more historical significance than the preceding theories. It is stated that the Yezidis have a tradition to the effect that they came from Baṣrah and from the country watered by the lower part of the Euphrates; that after their emigration they first settled in Syria, and subsequently took possession of the Sinjar Hill and the district now inhabited in Kurdistan. As to the date of their settlement in Mesopotamia, no positive information can be obtained. Some scholars infer that it took place about the time of Tamerlane, toward the end of the fourteenth century.78 It is related that the devil-worshippers hold that, among their own number, the ancient name for God is Azd, and from it the name of the sect is derived;79 that the conviction that they are Yezidis, i. e., God’s people, has been their consolation and comfort through the ages in their tribulations;80 and that they have taken many religious observances from different bodies—Mohammedans, Christians, Jews, Pagan Arabs, Shiites, and Sabaians.
Besides these different explanations of the origin of the devil-worshippers as descendants of Adam, of Yezid bn Mu‘awiya, as being of the colony from the north, as taking their name from Azd, God, there is another account. I refer to a myth which is current among the people of Seistan, an eastern province of Persia, where there are a considerable number of these Shaitan parasts (devil worshippers):
“In former times there existed a prophet named Ḥanalalah, whose life was prolonged to the measure of a thousand years. He was their ruler and benefactor; and as by his agency, their flocks gave birth to lambs and kids miraculously once a week, though ignorant of the use of money, they, with much gratitude to him, procured all the comforts of life. At length, however, he died, and was succeeded by his son, whom Šatan, presuming on his inexperience, tempted to sin by entering a large mulberry tree, when he addressed the successor of Ḥanalalah, and called on him to worship the prince of darkness. Astonished, yet unshaken, the youth resisted the temptation. But the miracle proved too much for the constancy of his flock, who now began to turn to the worship of the devil. The young prophet, enraged at this, seized an axe and a saw, and prepared to cut down the tree. He was arrested in this by the appearance of a human being, who exclaimed, ‘Rash boy, desist! Turn to me and let us wrestle for the victory. If you conquer, then fell the tree.’
“The prophet contended and vanquished his opponent, who, however, bought his own safety and that of the tree by the promise of a large weekly treasure. After seven days the holy victor again visited the tree to claim the gold or fell it to the ground; but Satan persuaded him to hazard another struggle on the promise that, if he conquered again, the amount should be doubled. This second encounter proved fatal to the youth. He was put to death by his spiritual antagonist, and the result confirmed the tribes over whom he had ruled in their worship of the tree and its tutelary demon.”81
According to this legend, the Šatan parasts are the victims of their young prophet who, as long as he was actuated by a disinterested zeal for religion, was victorious over the principle of evil; but failed as soon as that zeal gave place to a sordid cupidity for earthly treasure.
I have dwelt upon the superstitious theories of the Yezidis themselves regarding their religious origin, not because these theories have an importance in themselves, but because of their bearing upon the views advanced by modern scholars. The scholars have based their theories on some of these conflicting stories without sufficient criticism. I shall dwell upon this more at length later on.
II
The Christian Tradition
But the myth of the Yezidis is not the only account that attempts to trace their religious origin; the eastern Christians have a tradition that gives a different interpretation. It is to the effect that the people in question were originally Christians, but that ignorance brought them into their present condition. The tradition runs that the shrine of Šeiḫ ‘Adi was formerly a Nestorian monastery which was noted for the devotion of its monks, but that these were tempted by the devil and left their convent. The Church of the Monastery was dedicated to St. Thaddeus or Addai,82 one of the seventy-two disciples who, after the ascension of our Lord, was sent to King Abgar of Edessa. It is said that the temple of ‘Adi has a conventicle resembling that at Jerusalem.83 The story of how the cloister was deserted is as follows:
On a great feast day, while the hermits bearing the cross went in procession around the church, they saw, hanging on a tree, a piece of paper with this inscription: “O ye devout monks! Let it be known to you that God has forgiven all your sins, great and small; cease to undergo religious exercises; leave your hermitage; disperse, marry and rear children. Peace be unto you!” On the second day they observed the same thing, and were led to dispute among themselves whether this were a device of God or of a devil. When on the third day the same incident was repeated, they agreed to leave the abbey and follow what seemed to them a divine order. Šeiḫ ‘Adi, the legend goes on, had foretold to the Yezidis of that district that the monks of this monastery would desert their place, would become Yezidis, would marry and beget children; that he would die during that time; and that he wishes his followers to pull down the altar of the church in that priory and bury him there. Shortly after the fulfilment of his prophecy, the Šeiḫ died, and was entombed in the place of the altar. And since that time, it is asserted, the spot has become the sanctuary of the devil-worshippers. In support of this statement, it is argued, that there was a Syriac inscription in the temple mentioning the name of the founder of the monastery and the patriarch in whose time it was built; that some of the Yezidis themselves bear testimony to this fact, and say they have removed the writing from its former place and have hidden it at the entrance to ‘Adi’s temple, a spot the whereabouts of which only a few of them know. The reason why this record is hidden, it is explained, is the fear that the Nestorians may see it and reclaim the church.84
Such is the eastern Christian’s tradition relative to the origin of the Yezidis. It is, of course, merely a legend; but its character is such as to require careful examination and critical study. It may embody a measure of truth that will indirectly throw some light on the subject in hand.
One noticeable thing regarding this current view is that it is not a recent invention; else it might be said to be the creation of ignorance at a time far removed from the event which it records. Assemani, himself an oriental of distinguished scholarship, in that part of his book wherein he treats of the religion of Mesopotamia, according to the natives of the country, says that the Yezidis were at one time Christians, who, however, in the course of time, had forgotten the fundamental principles of their faith.85 This statement is incorporated in the writings of all western orientals that have travelled in the East.86
Another thing worthy of notice is that the Christians should have such a sacred regard for his tradition as to hand it down to posterity at the risk of their own reputation. Certainly the Christians are not cherishing this theory with any expectation of receiving honor by assuming relation with the Yezidis. The devil-worshippers are utterly despised by all their neighbors. Nor do they do it out of love, that they may arouse the sympathy of the dominating race for this degraded people. Oriental Christians themselves despise the Yezidi sect. They would not, and could not, help them. There must then be some truth in a legend that leads the church to regard a despised people as having been at one time co-religionists.
Were the antiquity of the tradition, and the unfavorable result which its entertainment causes, the only two reasons for its consideration, we might just as well dismiss it. But there are other things which go to point out some historic facts underlying the current theory. One such fact is that the family name of the Yezidis around Mosul is Daseni, plur Dawasen. The Christians and the Mohammedans know them by this name, and they themselves also use it, and say it is the ancient name of their race, existing from time immemorial.87 Now Daseni, or Dasaniyat, was the name of a Nestorian Diocese, the disappearance of which is simultaneous with the appearance of the Yezidis in these places.88
It is stated, moreover, that all the people of Sinjar were formerly Christians, belonging to the ancient Syriac Church and having a very prominent diocese, which was called the diocese of Šaki, i. e., Sinjar; and that the diocese continued to exist till the middle of the eighteenth century: What goes to verify this tradition is that, at present, there is a library at Jabal Sinjar, under the control of the Yezidis, that consists of ancient Syriac books. They are kept in a small room guarded by a Yezidi. On Sunday and Friday of every week they burn incense and light lamps in honor of the manuscripts; and once a month they take them out in the sun to dust and to preserve them from destruction by dampness. After the door is locked, the key is kept by the Šeiḫ, besides whom and his son no one else is allowed to touch the books. What is more interesting, the people of Sinjar say they have inherited the library from their forefathers, who were Christians.89 It is pointed out, furthermore, that the names of the principal towns of the Yezidis are Syriac. Ba‘šika comes from “the house of the falsely accused, or oppressed”; Ba‘adrie from “the place of help or refuge”; Baḥzanie from “the house of visions or inspiration”; Talḥas from “the hill of suffering,” where many Christians were martyred by Persians. These are a few of many Yezidi villages having Syriac names.
The Yezidis have religious practices which are to be found only in the Christian Church. I mean the rites of baptism and the Eucharist. It is true that the use of water as a rite is practised by other non-Christian sects, such as the Mandeans; but it is argued that this ordinance as observed by the Yezidis is so similar to that of the Christians that its origin is to be traced back to Christianity, rather than to any other system. Like their neighbors, the Dawaseni must if possible baptize their children at the earliest age. In performing the rite, the Šeiḫ, like the Christian priest, puts his hand upon the child’s head. In regard to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, it is strictly Christian in character. The Yezidis call the cup the cup of Isa (Jesus); and when a couple marry, they go to a Christian town to partake of Al-ḳiddas (the Eucharist) from the hand of a priest, a custom which prevails among eastern Christians. What requires special note is that this practice is observed where the Yezidi influence is not very strong, a fact which seems to indicate that the Apostate Nasara, who lived remote from strongly Yezidising influences, were able to retain some of their originally much favored practices, and vice versa.90
Finally, the Dawaseni entertain great reverence for Christianity and the Christian saints. They respect the churches and tombs of the Christians, and kiss the doors and walls when they enter them; but they never visit a Mohammedan mosque. In the Black Book a statement is made that on her way to the house of her bridegroom, a bride should visit the temple of every idol she passes by, even if it be a Christian Church.91 They have also professed reverence for ‘Isa (Jesus). They affect more attachment to An-Naṣara than to Mohammedans. Such a religious affinity cannot be fully accounted for on any other ground than that of their sincere respect for Christianity, a feeling which clearly indicates that these people must at one time have had a very close connection with Christianity. This intimate relation cannot be explained by their ignorance, or by kindred experiences, as some scholars seem to think.92 It is true the Christians have been co-sufferers with them; both have lived for generations under the same yoke of bondage and oppression and under similar circumstances. But this alone could not create sympathy between them. Such an assumption cannot be verified by the facts collected through our observation of the Yezidis’ character as a religious body. They are sincere in their beliefs, and never compromise in religious matters. History has shown again and again that they have suffered martyrdom for their faith, in which they have been as sincere and unshaken as have been the heroes of any religion. No matter how uneducated they may be, they are not hypocrites in their faith. The theory is also refuted by our understanding of the nature of the affinity in question between the Yezidis and the Christians. It is not a matter of sympathy but of religion. They believe in some forms of Christianity; and when they visit a church, they want to exercise their faith and not to express their sympathy. What is more, the eastern Christians have no sympathy for the devil worshippers, at least, not more than they have for any other religious body. Such an affinity is wanting between the Jews and the Christians or the Yezidis, yet they all live under the same conditions.
I am not here advocating the theory, or implying, that the Yezidi sect is a corrupt form of Christianity, but am simply aiming to show that if the similarity of a certain religion with another in some phases be taken as a ground for the explanation of its origin, the Christian tradition can be regarded as a more probable theory to account for the rise of Yezidism than any other view: And, hence, to point out, what seems to me to be the best position, that the explanation must be found ultimately in some historical document which will give us a reasonable clew in the tracing of the sect in question to its founder.
III
The Speculative Theories of Western
Orientalists
Thus far we have been dealing with the different theories regarding the origin of the Yezidis held in the East: the myth of the devil-worshippers themselves, the Christian tradition. Now we turn our attention to the West, which also has expressed itself on this subject. The degree of interest shown in this particular case, however, differs with different nationalities. The English-speaking scholars come first; next come the French; then the Russians; and finally the Italians. The German scholars seem to be interested mainly in certain words and festive events. And, in the discussion of these, they go so far in their unbounded speculation that one cannot tell whether the people they deal with are the Yezidis in question, Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Greeks, Romans or Jews. The German writers do not seem to be interested so much in the problem of the origin of this people as a sect, unless they regard the question as settled on the ground of the Yezidis’ own statement that they are the descendants of Yezid bn Mu‘awiya.
To tell the truth, the rise of the interest in the inquiry about the founder of this sect on a scientific basis, is due, without question, to the scholarship of the West. And any solution of the problem (and it does not matter who does the work), in the last analysis, must be accredited to the influences emanating from these scholars and these scholars only. Nevertheless modern orientalists have been far from approaching the solution of the question. This may be due in part to the extreme interest which they have taken in the matter, an interest which led them to accept the phenomena without critical examination. But the inductive study of their respective writings tends to show that this is due to their method of procedure rather than to anything else. They have employed the philosophical and not the historical method.93 I do not mean to deny the value of such a course of investigation in questions pertaining to religion, but what I do mean to say is that the method of the scholars in question is almost purely speculative, and they do not seem to appeal to historical facts in support of their assumptions. The inevitable consequence has been, therefore, that in their theories there exists an uncertainty and indefiniteness that puzzles the student of history.
Another fact which the inductive study of the views of the western scholars reveals is that their theories are nothing more nor less than the expression of the Yezidis’ tradition in terms of modern scholarship, without, however, the showing of reasons for so doing. This fact will be proved presently when we shall examine their respective writings.
Western orientalists are divided into three schools of opinion on the question of the religious origin of the Yezidis. There are those who hold that the sect takes its rise from Yezid bn Mu‘awiya. This view is advocated by a modern writer, who says, “The Arabs who accepted Mohammed called those who did not Al-jahaleen, i. e., the ignorant ones. Among the latter was Yezid bn Mu‘awiya who refused to accompany Mu‘awiya, his father, as an attendant upon his person. Many of the ignorant ones rallied around Yezid, and he became the nucleus of the sect that appropriated his name. The Yezidis possess a genealogical tree by means of which they trace their religious origin back to him.”94
Now, the ground for this assertion, the writer does not give; he is entirely silent as to the source of his information. It is evident, therefore, that he is regarding the superstitious theory of the Yezidis as a fact without making any reflection upon it. He also seems to be confusing this Yezid with his uncle of the same name, who, with Mu‘awiya his brother came in company with their father Abu Sofian, to Mohammed to receive presents from the Prophet. But the Arab historians tell us that not only Abu Sofian and each of his two sons received a hundred camels but that they were each presented with forty ounces of silver.95
Then, too, many scholars deny that the name Yezidis is the original appellation. Some assert it was put upon them by the Mohammedans as a term of reproach.96 Others maintain that the sect adopted the name Yezid, son of Mu‘awiya to secure toleration at the hands of the Mohammedans.97 But the scholar quoted may entertain the view of those who say that the Yezidis are really the followers of Ibn Mu‘awiya; but that they deny it for fear of persecution on the part of Shiites. These latter hate Yezid, because he murdered ‘Ali’s son, Husein, who is regarded by them as their true Imam. This inference is founded on the theory that the Mohammedans of Persia consider the people in question as descendants of the Calif whose name is odious to them.98 But it is not certain that the followers of ‘Ali entertain such a view regarding the origin of the Yezidis. And, if they do, they have no historical facts to justify them in their opinion. Their hatred of the sect can be better explained on the basis of the relation of the devil-worshippers to Yezid bn Unaisa. For he was one of those who most bitterly hated ‘Ali; see pp. 121, 122, 128 of this book.
Furthermore, the theory of this school is neutralized by the fact that none of the Arab historians mentions the son of the first Calif in the Omayyid dynasty as a founder of any heretical sect. On the contrary, they all agree that he was not only a Mohammedan but a successor of the prophet, being the second calif in the Omayyid dynasty. Ibn Ḫallikan mentions his name two or three times, and says that his works were collected. He says nothing, however, as to his founding any religious schism.
There is still another school among the western orientalists. I mean those who hold that the religion of the devil-worshippers is of Persian origin. They are of two wings. There are those who take their method of procedure from the name Yezid or Yazd. They argue that this term in Persian, Yazd (pla Yazdān), Avestan Yezata, ‘worthy of worship’, means God, or good spirit, over against Ahriman, the evil principle. Hence, the name Yezid, according to them, indicates the people that believe in this good god. To the objection that the Yezidis worship the evil spirit, answer is made that Yezid Ferfer is the name of the attendant of the evil spirit among the Parsees.99 Others believe that the word “Yezid” signifies God. It indicates in the plural the observers of superstitious doctrines as may be seen by the idol Yezid, which the Bishop of Nagham overthrew.100 Still others say that in the tradition of these people Yezid must have been an abbreviated form of Aez-da-Khuda, that is, created of God. In support of this theory, it is claimed that in reality the Yezidis worship God and not the devil. It is thought by many, too, that the Yezidis derive their name from Yazd, or Yezid, a name of a town in Central Persia, of which the Parsees form the principal part of the inhabitants.[101]
The other wing of the second school attempts to trace the origin of the devil-worshippers to a Persian source on the basis of certain resemblances between the two religions. Conspicuous among the representatives of this school is Professor A. V. Jackson, of Columbia University. This distinguished scholar is considered an eminent authority on Iranian religions, and particularly an eye-witness authority on the Yezidi question. His views, therefore, not only deserve careful consideration, but they demand their full share in solving such an important problem as the one under discussion. I have preferred his discussion of this theory to that of others because he has expressed himself clearly and consistently and without rendering himself liable to misapprehension on the part of the reader. Briefly stated, Dr. Jackson’s position is as follows: “The Yezidis may actually show some surviving traces of old devil-worship in Mazandaran, which Zoroaster anathematized so bitterly,” and “some old reminiscences of common Iranian faith.” To verify this hypothesis, he proceeds to point out many instances. One example he cites is that “the Yezidis are shocked if one spits upon the earth, because they interpret this as an insult to the devil.” He traces this abhorrence to “Zoroastrian prescription, forbidding the earth in any way to be defiled.” “The Daevayasna or devil-worshippers in Avesta,” he goes on to say, “may indirectly have had a kindred notion, i. e., not mentioning the name of Satan.” Moreover this American critic is informed that the Yezidis “believe in a father primeval, that lived before Adam, and did not fall into sin.” And this information leads him to think that such a notion helps “the Zoroastrian student to recognize at once a far-off reminiscence of Avestan Gaya-Mashai, the Iranian Adam and Eve.”101
One noticeable thing in favor of the two schools is that their method is strictly scientific, in the modern sense of the term. It is a posteriori and not a priori; it is inductive. Yet however scientific their method may seem to be their conclusions cannot be accepted as final. For the inductive method, according to the great French scientist, Poincaré, cannot give us exact knowledge because its experiments do not cover all the instances in a given case. There can be only a partial verification. There will always remain some phenomena that cannot be brought within the sphere of a particular observation.102 Now, this is exactly the case in the subject under consideration. Only in some phases does the Yezidi religion resemble that of the old Persians. There are other beliefs which do not come under this category, and which seem to bear the traces of some other religions. What are we to do with these?103 The advocates of the theory in question admit that such is the case, but they assert that “the resemblances of the Yezidi religion to Christianity and Islam are accidental”; that “owing to the residence of the Yezidis among the Mohammedans, the sect naturally has much in common with Islam.”104 But why are the resemblances to Iranism not to be accounted for in the same way as those to other religions? Why may not equally strong inference be made from the likeness to Christianity? And what is the basis of such a discrimination? On these questions we are left entirely in the dark. Now, it is this lack of ground for their method of procedure that leads one to seek the solution of the problem on some other verifiable hypothesis.
There is still another school among the western orientalists. I refer to those who maintain that the Yezidi sect was founded by Šeiḫ ‘Adi. A modern writer who holds this theory, after critically reviewing the views held by the different scholars, proceeds to advance his own idea. To emphasize it, and leave no room for further criticism, he claims that the theory has been “generally” accepted. To quote:
“It is generally agreed upon that the sect of the Yezidis was founded by Šeiḫ ‘Adi. He is a historical personage, but it is exceedingly difficult, and almost impossible, to establish any historical facts out of the mist of very fantastic stories current about him.”105
He supports his notion by an appeal to an Arab author, Kasi Ahmad ibn-Ḫallikan, from whom, according to this writer, an extract relating to Šeiḫ ‘Adi was published by one who for years was a resident of the city of Mosul.106 This statement that Ibn Ḫallikan gives the biography of ‘Adi is a fact that cannot be questioned; but that ‘Adi founded the Yezidi sect is a theory that is by no means “generally agreed upon.” Nor can it be substantiated. To justify this position, let me quote in full what the Arab biographer and two other Mohammedan scholars have to say on the problem.
1 What Ibn Ḫallikan has to say on Šeiḫ ‘Adi:
“The Šeiḫ ‘Adi Ibn Masafir Al-Hakkari was an ascetic, celebrated for the holiness of his life, and the founder of a religious order called after him Al-‘Adawiah. His reputation spread to distant countries, and the number of his followers increased to a great multitude. Their belief in his sanctity was so excessive that, in saying their prayers, they took him for their ḳibla; and imagined that in the next life they would have in him their most precious treasure and their best support. Before this, he had as a disciple a great number of eminent šeiḫs and men remarkable for their holiness. He then retired from the world and fixed his residence among the mountains of the Hakkari, near Mosul, where he built a cell (or a monastery) and gained the favor of the people in that country to a degree unexampled in the history of the anchorites. It is said that the place of his birth was a village called Bait Far, situated in the province of Baalbek, and that the house in which he was born is still visited (as a place of sanctity). He died A. H. 557 (A. D. 1162), or as some say A. H. 555, in the town where he resided (in the Hakkari region). He was interred in the monastery that he had erected. His tomb is much frequented, being considered by his followers one of the most sacred spots to which a pilgrimage can be made. His descendants continue to wear the same distinctive attire as he did and to walk in his footsteps. The confidence placed in their merits is equal to that formerly shown to their ancestor, and like him they are treated with profound respect. Abu Ibarakat ibn Al-Mustawfi notices the Šeiḫ ‘Adi in his history of Arbela, and places him in the list of those persons who visited that city. Muzaffar Ad-Din, the sovereign of Arbela, said that when a boy he saw the Šeiḫ ‘Adi at Mosul. According to him, he was a man of medium size and tawny complexion; he related also many circumstances indicative of his great sanctity. The šeiḫ died at the age of ninety years.”107
2 What Mohammed-Amin-Al-‘Omari has to say on Šeiḫ ‘Adi:
“They say that the šeiḫ ‘Adi was one of the inhabitants of Ba‘albek; that he transported himself to Mosul, and from thence to Jabal Laš, a dependency of this city (Mosul), where he resided until his death. They also say that he was from Ḥawran, and that his lineage goes back as far as Marwan bn al-Ḥakam, also that he is Šaraf ad Din Abou´l Faḍail ‘Adi bn Masafir bn Isma‘il bn Mousa bn Marwan bn al Ḥasan bn Marwan bn Mohammed bn Marwan bn al Ḥakam, who died in the year 558. His grave, which is well known, is the object of pious pilgrimages.”
“God tried him by a calamity, to wit, the appearance of a sect of apostates, called the Yezidis, because they claim to be descended from Yezid. They adore the sun and render worship to the devil. The following are some of the precepts of their faith that I found in a small tract made by one of the inhabitants of Aleppo, who knows their religion:
I. Adultery becomes lawful when committed by (mutual) consent.
II. They pretend that when the day of judgment comes, the šeiḫ ‘Adi will put them into a wooden basin which he will place on his head in order to cause them to enter into Paradise while uttering these contemptuous words: ‘I do this (or, I make them do this) by compelling God or in spite of him.’
III. The visit which they pay to the tomb of Šeiḫ ‘Adi is for them a pilgrimage which the devotees accomplished no matter how far distant the country is that they inhabit, and without being concerned about the expenses that the journey carries with it.”108
3 What Yasin Al-Hatib-al-Omari-Al-Mausili has to say on Šeiḫ ‘Adi:
“In this year 557 died the saint and the pious devotee ‘Adi bn Musafir, who performed miracles. His death took place in the city Hakkariya, one of the dependencies of Mosul. His origin is from Ba‘albek, which he left in order to come to Mosul, that he might consecrate himself to God. He passed a solitary life on the mountains and in caverns where lions and other wild beasts visited him often.”
“It is said that he was descended from the family of Omayyids, and this is the lineage which he attributed to himself: ‘Adi bn Musafir bn Isma‘il bn Mousa bn Marwan bn al-Ḥasan bn Marwan bn al-Ḥakam bn Al-‘Ass bn Omayya.”
“He was versed in the knowledge of the divine law. God tried him by a calamity by raising the Yezidis, who pretended that this šeiḫ is God, and who have made his tomb the object of their pilgrimage. They arrive there every year at the sound of drums in order to give themselves to games and debauchery.”
“The Christians of the land, and especially the partisans of the Nestorians are far from having the same opinion of the Šeiḫ ‘Adi as have the Moslems or the Yezidis. The following passage which one reads in a Chaldean manuscript entitled ‘Awarda’109 and which I saw some time ago in the Church of Karmalis,110 proves this sufficiently. This is the translation of the passage which I have extracted from a song composed by a bishop of Arbil, in honor of Rabban Hormuzd111 and other saints, and in which the author makes mention of ‘Adi in these terms:
“‘Great misfortunes have followed, falling upon us; a formidable enemy came to torment us. He was a descendant of Hagar, the slave of our mother. This enemy who made our life unfortunate was a Mohammedan, called ‘Adi. He deceived us by vile tricks, and has finished by taking possession of our riches and of our convent, which he consecrated to things that are illicit (to have a strange worship). An innumerable multitude of Mussulmen have attached themselves to him and have vowed to him a blind submission. The renown of his name, which is Šeiḫ ‘Adi, has spread down to our days in all the cities of all the countries.’”112
These are the accounts which we have of Šeiḫ ‘Adi in his relation to the Yezidis, and they deserve our special attention. For not only are the writers scholars of the highest authority, but they are to a certain extent eye-witness authorities. The last two are from the city of Mosul, which is the only city in the Mohammedan world whose widely spreading scholarship has acquired for it the name “Dar-al-‘Ulum,” i. e., the home of sciences. Moreover, they come from a family whose members are known as ‘Olama, highly intellectual, broad-minded Mohammedan gentlemen. While at Mosul, I had the honor of calling often on Ḥasan Efendi al ‘Omari, and especially on Suleiman Efendi al ‘Omari. Ibn Ḫallikan as a trustworthy biographer needs no further introduction than the mere mentioning of his name. What adds to his reputation as a scholar is the fact that, being a resident of Arbila in the province of Mosul, he had at his command firsthand information.
Another noteworthy fact is that all three of these scholars agree in their account of Šeiḫ ‘Adi, in their tracing of his genealogy, in describing him as the most perfect model of hermits, in praising him for his manner of life, which they regard as a life of holiness. They agree also in their definition of the common people’s attitude toward the Šeiḫ: that he was deified and that his tomb has been made the object of pilgrimage. And finally they are silent about his supposed founding of the sect in question. There is no intimation that he was a heretic, or that he established such a schism. To be sure, Ibn Ḫallikan makes mention of a religious order which was called after the Šeiḫ’s name, but he designates them as ‘Adawia and not as Yezidis. This might have been such an order as the Brotherhood of Assanusi, called after Mohammed ibn ‘Ali as-Sanusi, or as many other orders of dervishes and šeiḫs of mystical type, that have taken rise from time to time in the religious history of Islam. The other two speak of the appearance of the Yezidis, but they look at the incident as a calamity to the šeiḫ because they deified him and worshipped at his tomb. Their remarks tend to show that the Yezidi sect were known as such before the time of ‘Adi; that their appellation was based on the pretension that they were descendants of Yesid; that they were apostates from Islam; that they were some of those who were attached to ‘Adi by reason of his wide reputation as a saint, and were led by their ignorance to take him for a god; and that they were worshippers of the sun and the devil. It is inconceivable to us, if we apply the principles of modern criticism to what we know of the character of the Mohammedan historians, that they should write the life of one who is responsible for the rise of a sect, the foundation of whose religion is the devil, and not curse him and the devil with him a hundred million times.
Such are the theories that have been advanced in the discussion relating to the religious origin of the Yezidi sect, and we have found not only that they are far from reaching the solution of the problem, but also that the method that they employ does not seem to be the proper one for solving such a question. The tradition of the Yezidis that they are descended from Yezid bn Mu‘Awiya which has been accepted as the fact by some western scholars is only a myth, without historical justification. As to the Christian tradition, all that can tell us is that some Yezidis might have been at one time Christians; but as to who was the founder of the sect it gives us no light. Likewise, all that we can learn from the theory advocated by the second school is that some phases of the Persian religion might have survived with that of the devil-worshippers. We may admit, I think, that some Yezidis are Persian in their origin. But as to who was the originator of their religion this theory helps us not a whit. So also we have found that the relation of Šeiḫ ‘Adi to this sect is not that of a founder. He is only one of many whom their ignorance led to class as deities.
IV
The Dogmatic View of Mohammedan Scholars
While the Yezidi myth regards the sect as descendants of Adam, of Yezid bn Mu awiya, or of a colony from the north, while the Christian tradition of the East traces them to a Christian origin, while among the western orientalists some say that they were founded by Yezid bn Mu awiya, others that they are of Persian origin, etc., the Mohammedan dogmatics, on the other hand, assert that they are Murtaddoon, that is, apostates from Islam. To understand the significance of this term, I must mention the several words used for those who are considered as infidels according to Mohammedan theology. Kafir is one who hides or denies the truth; Mushrik is one who ascribes companions to God; Mulhid is one who has deviated from the truth; Zandik is one who asserts his belief in the doctrine of dualism; Munafik is one who secretly disbelieves in the mission of Mohammed; Dahri is an atheist; Watani is a pagan or idolator; and finally Murtadd is one who apostasizes from Islam. The Yezidis are put in the category of those who, after once accepting the religion of Islam, later rejected it.
One author, of those to whose writings I had access, in an explicit statement regards these people as apostates. I refer to Amin-al-‘Omari-al Mausili (of Mosul). After praising Šeiḫ ‘Adi, the Mosulian goes on to say, “God tried him (i. e., ‘Adi) by a calamity, to wit, the appearance of Al-Murtaddoon, called the Yezidis because they pretended to have been descended from Yezid.113 Another Mohammedan scholar that mentions these people is Yasin Al-Ḫatib-al-‘Omari-al Mausili. Writing on Šeiḫ ‘Adi, and praising him as the former writer does, he says, “He was versed in the knowledge of the divine law. God tried him by a calamity by raising up the Yezidis, who pretend that this Šeiḫ is God, and who have made his tomb the object of their pilgrimage.114
While these authors throw some light on the subject that the sect in question derives its appellation from a historic person, they leave us entirely in the dark as to who that person was, as the Arab historians mention many prominent men who bore the name Yezid.
This obscurity regarding the person of the founder of the sect is made clear by one whose work is equally, if not more, authoritative than that of any other Mohammedan scholar on matters pertaining to religious and philosophical sects. This authority is Mohammed Aš-Šahrastani. He is the only Mohammedan writer that I could reach that, in a clear language, traces this most interesting sect to its founder.
“The Yezidis are the followers of Yezid bn Unaisa, who [said that he] kept friendship with the first Muhakkama before the Azariḳa, and he separated himself from those who followed after them with the exception of Al-Abaḍia, for with these he kept friendship. He believed that God would send an apostle from among the Persians and would reveal to him a book that is already written in heaven, and would reveal the whole (book) to him at one time,115 and as a result he would leave the law of Mohammed, the Chosen One, may God bless and save him!—and follow the religion of the Sabians mentioned in the Koran. But these are not the Sabians who are found in Ḥaran and Wasit. But Yezid kept friendship with the people of the book who recognized the Chosen One as a prophet, even though they did not accept his (Mohammed’s) religion. And he said that the followers of the ordinances are among those who agree with him; but that others are hiding the truth and give companions to God and that every sin, small or great, is idolatry.”116
It is clear, then, that Aš-Šahrastani finds the religious origin of this interesting people in the person of Yezid bn Unaisa. He calls them his Aseḥab, i. e., his followers, a term by which he designates the relation between a sect and its originator. Al-Ḥaraṯiyah he describes as “Aseḥab al-Ḥareṯ,” and “Al Ḥafeziyah Aseḥab Hafez,” and so on. We are to understand, therefore, that to the knowledge of the writer, bn Unaisa is the founder of the Yezidi sect, which took its name from him.
Mohammed Aš-Šahrastani states also, in a logical way, the theological views of the head of the Yezidis. Yezid, he says, is on the positive side, in sympathy with the first Muḥakkamah before the Azariḳa. Now, the first Muhakkamah is an appellative applied to the Muslim schismatics called Al-Ḫawarij, because they disallowed the judgment of the Hakaman, i. e., the two judges, namely ‘Abd Mousa al-Aš-‘Aree and Am ibn-al-‘As; and said that judgment belongs only to God. And Al-Azariḳa were a heretical Muslim sect called Al-Ḫawarij or Ḥeroriyah, so named in relation to Nafi‘ ibn-Al-Azraḳ. They asserted that ‘Ali committed an act of infidelity by submitting his case to arbitration, and that the slaying of him by Ibn Muljama was just; and they declare that the companions (of the Prophet) were guilty of infidelity. Yezid moreover, is said to have been in sympathy with Al-Abaḍiyah, a sect founded by ‘Abd-Allah ibn Ibad, who taught that if a man commits a kabirah or great sin he is an infidel and not a believer.
It is evident, therefore, that according to this exposition the Yezid in question was one of Al-Ḫawarij, and their principle is expressly attributed to him: every sin, small or great, is idolatry. According to this it might be inferred that the Yezidis were originally a Ḫarijite sub-sect. They still hold to the Ḫarijite principle. (Cf. their position to the Ottoman Government, pp. 71-74). As we said some Mohammedan writers other than Ashahr-Astani also (pp. 118-119) regard them as apostate Moslems, Aš-Šahrastani himself classes them with the Moslem heretics. Now Al-Ḫawarij were the first to rebel against ‘Ali at Ḥaroora, a certain suburb of Al-Koofa, from which it is distant two miles. They are called also Al-Ḥeroriyah, because they first assembled there and accepted the doctrine that government belongs only to God. And one sect of Al-Ḫawarij was An-Nâṣibiyah who made it a matter of religious obligation to bear a violent hatred to ‘Ali. Such is the place of bn Unaisa among the Moslem heretics, but this is only one side of his religious system.117
There is another side to Yezid’s doctrine. He held that God would send an apostle from Persia, to whom he would reveal a book already written in heaven. This apostle was to be an opponent of the prophet of Islam in that he would leave Mohammed’s religion and follow that of the Ṣabians mentioned in the Koran. These are referred to by Mohammed, together with the Christians and the Jews, in three different places in the Book. One such reference is in Surah 2, 59: “They who believe as well as Jews, Christians and Sabeans, whoever believeth in God and in the Last Day, and do that which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord.”
Surah 5, 73, also:
“They who believe as well as Jews, Christians and Sabeans, whoever of them believe in God and the Last Day, and do what is right, on them shall no fear come; neither shall they be put to grief.”
And Surah 22, 17:
“They who believe as well as Jews, Sabeans and Christians and the Magians, and those who join gods with God, verily God shall decide between them on the Day of Resurrection.”
In these passages Mohammed seems to regard the Sabians of the Koran as believers in the true God and in the resurrection. And in Surah 22, 17, he seems to distinguish them from Magians and polytheists. Hence, we are to infer that the Apostle of whom Yezid bn Unaisa says that he will come from the land of the ´Ajam (Persian), will identify himself with the religion of the Ṣabians. This implies that he will believe in the true God and in the Day of Resurrection. But from some Arab writers we learn more of these Ṣabian beliefs than the Prophet of Islam has mentioned. According to some the Ṣabians were a sect of unbelievers who worshipped the stars secretly, and openly professed to be Christians. According to others, they were of the religion of Ṣabi, the son of Seth, the son of Adam; while others said they resembled the Christians, except that their ḳiblah was toward the South, from whence the wind blows. In the Kamûs it is said that they were of the religion of Noah. Al-Baiḍawi says that some assert that they were worshippers of angels, and that others say that they are the worshippers of stars. Al-Bertuni[48] calls the Manichaeans of Samarḳand Sabians. Bar Hebraeus118 asserts that the religion of the Sabians is the same as that of the ancient Chaldeans. In commenting on Surah 2, 59, Zamaḫšari (Al-Keššaf) says that the name Ṣabian comes from a root meaning one who has departed from one religion to another religion, and that the Ṣabians were those who departed from Judaism and Christianity and worshipped angels. On this same verse, Šams Ad-Din Mohammed Al-Ḥarrani (Jami Al-Bijan fi Tafsir Al-Koran) says: “The Ṣabians, i. e., those who departed from one religion to another religion, stood between the Magians and the Jews and the Christians without having any revealed religion of their own. According to some they were people of the Book; according to others they were worshippers of angels; while others say, they believed in one God but followed no Prophet.” This same commentator on Surah 5, 73, says: “The Ṣabians were a Christian sect; some say that they were worshippers of angels; others assert that they worshipped God alone, but had no revealed religion.” On this same verse Zamaḫšari remarks, “The Ṣabians were those who departed from all religions.”
Now what Mohammed Aš-Šahrastani really means by the Ṣabians of the Koran, I am unable to state. In his general discussion of Ṣabianism however (vol. 2, pp. 201-250), he seems to speak of two main Ṣabian sects. He refers to one together with the ancient philosophers; and declares that the Ṣabians followed rational ordinances and judgments which originally they may have derived from some prophetic authority, but that they denied all prophecy. The philosophers followed their own devices and took their system from no prophetic source. The authority we are quoting calls this sect “the original Ṣabian sect,” and says that it followed Seth and Enoch. In another place (vol. 1, p. 24) he writes, “The Jews and the Christians follow a revealed Book; the Magians and the Manichæans, a like Book; the original Ṣabian sect, ordinances and judgments, but accepts no Book; the original philosophers, the atheists, the star-worshippers, the idol-worshippers, and the Brahmans believe in none of these.”
The other main Ṣabian sect is mentioned together with the Jews, the Christians, and the Moslems. The difference between these religious bodies, according to Aš-Šahrastani, is that “the Ṣabians do not follow the Law (of God) or Islam; the Christians and the Jews believe in these, but do not accept the Law (religion) of Mohammed; while the Moslems believe in them all.
Aš-Šahrastani, moreover, derives the name Ṣabian (p. 203) from a root meaning one who turns aside, deviates; and declares that the Ṣabians were those who turned aside from the statutes of God, and deviated from the path of the prophets. He seems to regard the notion that man is incapable of approaching God, and that therefore he is in constant need of intercessors and mediators, as a controlling idea in Ṣabianism. This belief, the writer points out, has manifested itself in three different forms: in the veneration of angels among what he calls the followers of angels; the adoration of stars among the followers of stars; and in the worship of idols among the followers of idols, heathens (pp. 203, 244). The last two, we are told, are polytheists, and referred to in the Koranic statement:
(“When Abraham said to his father, Azar, ‘Dost thou take idols for gods?’—Surah 6, 74. Said he—Abraham—‘Do ye serve what ye hew out?’—Surah 37, 93. When he—Abraham—said to his father, ‘Oh my sir! why dost thou worship what can neither hear nor see nor avail thee aught?’—Surah 19, 43.”)
And in the following references:
(“And when the night overshadowed him he saw a star and said, ‘This is my Lord.’ And when he saw the moon beginning to rise he said, ‘This is my Lord.’ And when he saw the sun beginning to rise he said, ‘This is my Lord, this is greatest of all.’”)—Surah 6, 76, 77, 78.
But Mohammed Aš-Šahrastani makes mention of another Ṣabian sect which he names Al-Ḫarbâniyah (pp. 248-250). Its distinctive feature, he says, is the belief that the Creator indwelleth in other beings. They held that God is one in his essence, but many in his appearances. He dwells in the seven planets, and in the earthly beings that are rational, good, and excellent in righteousness. Human body is his temple; he may abide within it and live and move as a man. He is too good, we read, to create anything evil. God is the source of good, and evil is either an accidental and necessary thing, or related to the evil source. They believed also, our authority informs us, in the transmigration of souls, and taught that the Resurrection of which the prophets had spoken was only the end of one generation and the beginning of another here on earth. This doctrine, the Mohammedan critics affirm, is alluded to in the passages:
(“Does he promise you that when ye are dead, and have become dust and bones, that then ye will be brought forth? Away, away with what ye are promised,—there is only our life in the world! We die and we live and we shall not be raised.”)—Surah 23, 37-39.
Now I cannot say which of the Ṣabian sects are those that “are mentioned in the Koran,” which Yezid bn Unaisa says, the Persian Apostle will follow; nor can I say which are those that “are found in Ḥarran and Wasit.” One thing, however, is clear: according to Aš-Šahrastani the Ṣabians of the Koran differ in their faith from those of Ḥarran. The Ḥarranians were remnants of the old heathen of Mesopotamia; they were polytheistic, and star-worship had the chief place in their religion, as in the worship of the older Babylonian and Syrian faiths. They were regarded as such by the Mohammedans, so that under Al-Mamûn, they sheltered themselves under the name, Ṣabians, that they might be entitled to the toleration which the Ṣabians of the Koran have because they were considered among the people of the Book.119 Another thing to be noticed is that there is a close resemblance between the belief of the Ṣabian sect which Aš-Šahrastani calls Al-Ḫarbâniyah and that of the Yezidi sect.
Such is, in the main, the religion of the Persian Apostle and is logically the religion of Yezid bn Unaisa which announces the coming of such a messenger. We may conclude, therefore, that the founder of the Yezidi sect believed in God and in the Day of Resurrection; that he, perhaps, honored the angels and the stars, and that he was neither polytheistic nor a true believer in the Prophet of Islam. This last point is referred to also explicitly in the statement quoted, that Yezid associated himself with those of the people of the Book who recognized Mohammed as a prophet though they did not become his followers. This is the negative aspect, so to speak, of bn Unaisa’s religious views. He is also said to have claimed that the followers of the ordinances120 agreed with him. This statement tends to indicate that he might have accepted some phases of the Muslim faith. And the fact that he belonged to Al-Ḫawarij implies that he was one of those who were “condemning and rejecting ‘Ali for his scandalous crime of parleying with Mu‘awiya, the first of the Omayyid line, and submitting his claims to arbitration.” Such are in brief the fundamental elements in the religious system of one who may be held responsible for the rise of the sect in question.
There can be no doubt, it seems to me, that the Yezidis are the followers of Yezid bn Unaisa. The statement of our authority, Mohammed Aš-Šahrastani (see pp. 119-120), is so clear that it can bear no other interpretation. And what is far more important, it comes from the pen of one who is considered of the highest authority among the Arab scholars on questions relating to philosophical and religious sects. In his bibliographical work Ibn Ḫallikan speaks of his profound scholarship in the highest terms: “Aš-Šahrastani, a dogmatic theologian of the ‘Ašarite sect, was distinguished as an Imam and a doctor of the law. He displayed the highest abilities as a jurisconsult. The Kitab al-Milal wa n-Niḥal (treatise on religions and sects) is one of his works on scholastic theology. He remained without an equal in that branch of science.” Now, Mohammed Aš-Šahrastani (A. H. 467-549) A. D. 1074-1133 was a contemporary of ‘Adi (A. H. 465-555) A. D. 1072-1162, yet he makes no allusion to him when he refers to the rise of this most interesting sect; nor does he make mention of any other supposed founder except the one he records. For these reasons I accept the historical assertion of this distinguished author.
I am of the opinion, therefore, that the Yezidis received their name from Yezid bn Unaisa, their founder as a kharijite sub sect in the early period of Islam; that, attracted by Šeiḫ ‘Adi’s reputation, they joined his movement and took him for their chief religious teacher; that in the early history of the sect and of ‘Adi many Christians, Persians, and Moslems united with it; and that large survivals or absorptions of pagan beliefs or customs are to be found in modern Yezidism. In other words the actual religion of the Yezidis is syncretism in which it is easy to recognize Yezidi, Christian, Moslem, especially sufism and pagan elements.
Like the master they believe in the true God and in the Resurrection, honor the angels and the stars, disbelieve in the mission of Mohammed and ignore ‘Ali, regard every sin, small or great, as idolatry or infidelity, and expect the appearance of a prophet from Persia. The fact of their connection with such a religious leader explains the reason why they are hated by both the Sunnites and the Shiites. The followers of bn My‘awiya can only be despised by the latter; but the believer such a heretical one as the son of Unaisa are necessarily condemned by the former also. For he was, as I have already stated, anti-Mohammed and anti-‘Ali. And it is worth remembering also that the fourth Calif is more honored among the Moslems of Persia than his son Ḥusein is; and consequently any contemptuous attitude toward the father will give rise to more bitter feeling on the part of his followers than the murder of the son would occasion.
There is one question, however, which does not appear to be very easy to answer; namely, how the Yezidis came to trace their origin to Yezid bn Mu‘awiya and not to Yezid bn Unaisa. Three explanations may be given. One is that their ignorance led them to mistake the former for the latter, as they have identified many of their šeiḫs with angels and deities. Among ignorant people, as these are, without record and without any one who can read, the occasion of such an error is not strange. Another answer is that they intentionally made the identification in order to escape the persecution of the Sunnites, among whom most of them lived. Though specious, this idea is not tenable, for it is not their habit to deny their origin for the sake of safety. Even in that case, they would still be hated by the Shiites. The third theory is that they have a notion that they are descended from a noble personage, and the second Calif being such a personage, their ignorance led them to take him for their founder. And the identity of the two names, of course, helped much toward the formation of the legend.
It is to be noticed that the religion of this Yezid contained, from its inception, a fundamental doctrine which appealed to the pagans of Persia more than it did to Al-jahaleen of Arabia. In its very structure it insulted the latter country by despising its prophet. On the other hand, it expressed its sympathy with a prophet from Persia and with his religion. This declaration magnified Persia and its inhabitants and gave them preëminence, thereby making an impression on the attitude of the people toward Yezidism. Therefore they looked on it not as a foreign but as a native cult. The entertaining of such a view, consequently, led many fire, or devil-worshippers and the followers of Zoroastrianism to embrace the new religion (Al-mašrik, vol. 2, p. 35). And if the predicted teacher arose, we can imagine the great success which he must have had among his countrymen. This fact not only accounts for the existence of traces of old Persian religion, but it gives the reason why the Kurdish predominates over the Arab element in Yezidism.
The new sect appears to have existed as a very loose organization after the death of its founder: this looseness put them in a condition to follow any one who would exhibit some qualifications for leadership. Therefore, when they heard about ‘Adi they naturally flocked to him. And it is very likely that, entertaining the idea of a coming prophet as they still do, they might have thought him the promised one. What might have added to the confirmation of this notion was his fame as a saint, to whom a number of miracles were attributed. Even the lions and the serpents which lived in his neighborhood and paid him frequent visits were endowed, it is said, with supernatural sweetness.
From what we know of ‘Adi’s movement, we have sufficient reason to conclude that many Moslems and Christians followed him. The historians of both faiths bear witness to the fact that ‘Adi’s reputation was widespread, and that people of every condition followed him (see pp. 111-115). The Nestorian bishop of Arbela, whom Yasin Al-‘Omari quotes (see p. 114), asserts that innumerable multitudes flocked to him, deplores the situation of the Christian church resulting from this uprising, and complains of the possession by the Šeiḫ of a monastery belonging to his denomination. Moreover, as has been shown, there exist among the Yezidis certain Moslem and Christian practices which cannot be accounted for on any other ground, since, so far as we know their character, they make no compromise in matters of religion.
Not only Yezidi, Persian, Moslem, and Christian elements are to be found in modern Yezidism, but there are many remains of the old pagan religions which find expression in the devil-worshippers of to-day. Such is the notion of the sacredness of the number seven, an idea which belongs to the common stock of the ancient inhabitants of Mesopotamia. The Yezidis have seven sanjaks, each has seven burners; their cosmogony shows that God created seven angels or gods; their principal prayer is the appeal to God through seven šeiḫs; the sceptre engraved on the front of the temple of their great saint has seven branches. This reminds us at once of the Ṣabians who adored seven gods or angels who directed the course of seven planets; the seven days of the week were dedicated to their respective deities. Moreover, we note in the Babylonian-Assyrian poem, the seven gates through which Ištar descended to the land without return. Likewise, the number seven played an important part in the religious system of Israel.