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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Further, like the Ḥarranians, the modern Šatan-parast
worship the sun and the moon at their rising
and setting. The sun was worshipped also in Canaan,
I Sam. 6: 9. The horses of the sun were worshipped
in the temple at Jerusalem, II Kings 25: 5, 11. The
worship of the host of heaven (the sun, the moon, the
planets), were found in Judea. In Babylon, there
were at least two shrines to sun-god Šamas, one at
Sippar, and the other at Larsa.
Other survivals of the ancient religions found in
Yezidism are the worship of birds (see p. 150); the
special importance attached to the New Year because
of its bearing on individual welfare by reason of the
good or evil decision of the gods rendered them (see
pp. 46, 174); and the belief in occurrences of nuptials
in the heavens (see p. 174).
Moreover, many religious beliefs of the Pre-Islamic
Arabs survive among the modern Yezidis. Such is
the belief in sacred wells in connection with sanctuaries
found in all parts of the Semitic region, the most
conspicuous of which is that of Mecca. Gifts were
cast into this holy water of Zamzam, as they were
cast into the sacred wells of other places. When the
grandfather of Mohammed ‘Abd Al-Muttalib cleaned
out the well, he found two golden gazelles and a
number of swords. The water of such holy springs
was believed to possess healing power, and was carried
home by pilgrims, as the water of Zamzam now is
(Yaḳut I, 434).121 An impure person, furthermore,
dared not approach the sacred waters. A woman in
her uncleanness was afraid for her children’s sake to
bathe in the holy water at the sanctuary of Dusares.
According to Ibn Hišam “A woman who adopts
Islam breaks with the heathen god by purifying herself
in this pool.” This was taken to mean that her
act was a breach of the ritual of the spot. And all
the pilgrims changed their clothes when they entered
the sacred precinct.122
Another common heathen practice in the time of
Al-jahliya was the worship of holy trees. According
to Tabari there was a date-palm tree at Nejran. It
was adored at an annual feast, when it was hung all
around with fine clothes and women’s ornaments. A
similar tree to which the people of Mecca resorted
annually, and hung upon it weapons, garments,
ostriches’ eggs, and other things, is spoken of in the
tradition of the prophet under the name of “dhat
anwat,” or “tree to hang things on.”123 The Goddess
Al-‘Ozza was believed to reside in a tree. According
to Yaḳut (III, 261), the tree at Hadaibiya, mentioned
in the Koran (sura XLVIII, 18) was visited
by pilgrims who expected to derive a blessing from it,
till it was cut down by the Calif Omar lest it should be
worshipped like Al-Lat and Al-‘Ozza. It was considered
deadly to pluck a twig from such sacred
trees.
The prevalence of stone-worship is another sign of
paganism existing before Islam, and noteworthy is the
theory advanced by the Mohammedan writers to
account for its origin. According to Ibn Hišam124 the
beginning of this idolatry was that “the Meccans
when their land became too narrow for them spread
abroad over the country, and all took stones from their
sanctuary, the Kaaba, out of reverence for their
temple, and they set them up whenever they formed
a settlement; and they walked around them as they
used to go about the Holy House. This led them at
last to worship every stone that pleased their fancy.”
It is to be noticed, furthermore, that poly-demonism,
i. e., the belief in divine powers, in spirits, is the most
characteristic feature of the old nomad religions.
Many traces of this belief have been preserved in the
Old Testament, and also in the popular religion of
the Syria and Palestine of to-day. There are many
instances in the Old Testament of the belief in divine
powers inhabiting springs, trees, stones. We may
refer to the sacred wells at ḳadeš (Gen. 14: 7) and
at Beeršeba (Gen. 21, 28, 30, 31); to the sacred
oracular tree at Shekem (Gen. 12, 6; Deut. 11, 3);
to the sacred stone of Bethel, which gave the place
its name, as it is called “a house of God” (Gen. 28,
22).125
Now, the traces of all these religious beliefs are
found in modern Yezidism. In connection with the
temple of Šeiḫ ‘Adi, there is a sacred spring, and
there are similar ones in different parts of the Yezidi
districts. The water of these springs is held to have
healing power, and is carried by pilgrims to their
homes. In these pools, especially in that of ‘Adi’s,
the Yezidis cast coins, jewelry, and other presents,
which, they think, the chief saint takes from time to
time; and to this day no one may enter the holy
valley with its sacred fountain, unless he first purify
his body and clothes.126 The devil-worshippers adore,
likewise, sacred trees. They make pilgrimages to
them, hang things on them, and entertain the belief
that whoever unties or shakes off a shred of cloth
will be afflicted with disease. Again, the Yezidis kiss
the stones that satisfy their imagination, and make
vows to them (see pp. 41, 50). Nor is this all. The
shouting of the Yezidi pilgrims, as they reach the
sacred territory, and the noisy ceremony of their ḥajj,
with its dancing127 and its excitement—a rite which
has brought against them all sorts of accusations128—are
nothing but the remnants of Pre-Islamic
paganism.129
Such, then, are the steps which the religion of
Yezid took before it came to shape itself into its
present form. It is made up of five different elements,
pagan, that contributed by the founder,
Persian, Mohammedan, and Christian. Does not
such a state of affairs find a historical parallel in
some other religions? Take, for example, Christianity.
In it we find that the distinctive characteristics
of the founder have been wrapped up in many
foreign elements brought in by those who came from
other religions.
