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]).