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.