“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 Hormuzd[111] 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]