It is interesting to note that, in the history of religion, the god of one people is the devil of another. In the Avesta, the evil spirits are called daeva (Persian Div); the Aryans of India, in common with the Romans, Celts, and Slavs gave the name of dev (devin, divine, divny) to their good or god-like spirits. Asura is a deity in the Rig Veda, and an evil spirit only in later Brahman theology. Zoroaster thought that the beings whom his opponents worshipped as gods, under the name of daeva, were in reality powers by whom mankind are unwittingly led to their destruction. “In Islam the gods of heathenism are degraded into jinn, just as the gods of north semitic heathenism are called šĕirim (hairy demons) in Lev. 17: 7, or as the gods of Greece and Rome became devils to the early Christians.”[142]
The Yezidis’ veneration for the devil in their assemblies is paid to his symbol, the sanjaḳ. It is the figure of a peacock with a swelling breast, diminutive head, and widespread tail. The body is full but the tail is flat and fluted. This figure is fixed on the top of a candlestick around which two lamps are placed, one above the other, and containing seven burners. The stand has a bag, and is taken to pieces when carried from place to place. Close by the stand they put water jugs filled with water, to be drunk as a charm by the sick and afflicted. They set the sanjaḳ at the end of a room and cover it with a cloth. Underneath is a plate to receive the contributions. The ḳawwal (sacred musician) kisses the corner of the cloth when he uncovers Melek-Ṭâ´ûs. At a given signal, all arise, then each approaches the sanjaḳ, bows before it and puts his contribution into the plate. On returning to their places, they bow to the image several times and strike their breasts as a token of their desire to propitiate the evil principle.
The Yezidis have seven sanjaḳs, but the Fariḳ (Lieut.-Gen. of the Turkish Army), who tried to convert them to Mohammedanism in 1892, took five of them. Some deny, however, that they were real ones; they say they were imitations. Each sanjaḳ is given a special place in the Emir’s palace, where it is furnished with a small brazen bed and a vessel in the form of a mortar placed before it. They burn candles and incense before it day and night. Each sanjaḳ is assigned a special district, the name of which is written on a piece of paper and placed on its shoulder. On the shoulder of the first the district of Šeiḫan, which comprises the villages around Mosul, is indicated; on the second Jabal Sinjar; in the third the district of Ḫalitiyah, which is one of the dependencies of Diarbeker; on the fourth the district of Ḫawariyah, i. e., the Kocḥers; on the fifth the district of Malliah, the villages around Aleppo; on the sixth the district of Sarḥidar, which is in Russia; and the seventh remains at the tomb of Šeiḫ ‘Adi.
When sent from village to village of its respective district, a sanjaḳ is put in a hagibah[143] (saddle-bag) and carried on a horse that belongs to a pir (religious teacher). On nearing a certain place, a messenger is sent to announce in Kurdish “Sanjaḳ hat,” “the Sanjaḳ has come.” Then all the people don their fineries and go out to welcome it with tambourines. As the representative of Melek Ṭâ´ûs reaches the town, the pir cries out in Kurdish language, “Sanjaḳ mevan ki sawa?” (literally: “Whose guest shall the sanjaḳ be?”). On hearing this, each person makes a bid for the privilege of entertaining it. Finally he who bids the highest receives the image. At that moment the accompanying pir takes the hagibah off the horse’s back and hangs it on the neck of the person who is to keep the symbol of the devil over night.
The Yezidis say, that in spite of the frequent wars and massacres to which the sect has been exposed, and the plunder and murder of the priests during their journeys, no Melek Ṭâ´ûs has ever fallen into the hands of the Mohammedans. When a ḳawwal sees danger ahead of him, he buries the Melek Ṭâ´ûs and afterwards comes himself, or sends some one to dig up the brazen peacock, and carries it forward in safety.
Besides revering the devil by adoring his symbol, the Yezidis venerate him by speaking with great respect of his name. They refer to him as Melek Ṭâ´ûs, King Peacock, or Melek al-ḳawwat, the Mighty King. They never mention his name; and any allusion to it by others so irritates and vexes them that they put to death persons who have intentionally outraged their feelings by its use. They carefully avoid every expression that resembles in sound the name of Satan. In speaking of shatt (river) they use the common Kurdish word Ave, or the Arabic ma (water). In speaking of the Euphrates, they call it Ave ‘Azim, or ma al-kabir, i. e., the great river, or simply al-Frat.
2. Šeiḫ ‘Adî
Next to the devil in rank comes Šeiḫ ‘Adi. But he is not the historical person whose biography is given by the Mohammedan authors. He is identified with deity and looked upon as a second person in a divine trinity. He is sent by Melek Ṭâ´ûs to teach and to warn his chosen people lest they go astray. He is conceived to be everywhere, to be greater than Christ; and, like Melek-Ṣedek, has neither father nor mother. He has not died and will never die. In verse ten of the poems in his praise, he is distinctly said to be the only God. His name is associated with all the myth that human imagination can possibly create about a deity. To express the Yezidi dogma in terms of Christian formula, Šeiḫ ‘Adi is the Holy Spirit, who dwells in their prophets, who are called kochaks. He also reveals to them truth and the mysteries of heaven.
The entertaining of such views has led some modern critics to think ‘Adi the good and Melek Ṭâ´ûs the evil principle. In the poem (30-32), he is represented as the good deity and the source of all good. Others identify him with Adde or Adi, a disciple of Manes or Mani. Still others regard his name as one of the names of the deity. In this case, his tomb is a myth and the prefix “Šeiḫ” is added to deceive the Mohammedans, and thus to prevent them from desecrating the sacred shrine, just as the Christians call Mar Mattie, Sheikh Mattie, and the convent of Mar Behnan, ḫuder Elias.[144] But the most ingenious theory is that advanced by the Rev. G. P. Badger. He queries whether the Yezidi ‘Adi be not cognate with the Hebrew Ad, the two first letters in the original of Adonai, the Lord, and its compounds, Adonijah, Adonibezek. The writer is aware, however, that “This derivative is open to objection on the ground that the Yezidis write the word with ‘ain and not with alif.” But he explains: “They write so only in Arabic, of which they know but very little, and not in their own language (Kurdish) in which they do not write it at all. Moreover, they may have assimilated the mode of expressing the title of their deity in bygone days to that of ‘Adi, one of the descendants of the Merawian Califs, with whom, from fear of being persecuted by the Mohammedans, they sometimes identified him.” Having thus expounded his own view, this English scholar proceeds to repudiate the suggestion that Šeiḫ ‘Adi “is the same Adi,” one of the disciples of Mani, since there is no proof, according to him, that Mani himself was deified by his followers.
So far as the application of the method of comparative philology is concerned, Badger’s theory is more reasonable and tenable than that of Lidzbarski, who, by the same method, attempts to identify Melek Ṭâ´ûs with Tammuz. Nevertheless, the inference of the former is beyond any possible justification. For such a starting-point is misleading when it is not supported by historical proof. A failure to support it thus cannot be regarded as other than deficiency in treatment. Now, while one may be misguided by the Yezidi myth surrounding the personality of Šeiḫ ‘Adi, the critical mind can find much in it to aid him in his efforts to discover the true identity of the man. In verse fifty of his poem, for our critic draws his conclusions in the light of this poem, the Šeiḫ receives his authority from God who is his lord; in verse fifty-seven he is a man, ‘Adi of Damascus, son of Musafir; in verse eighty he declares that the high place which he had attained is attainable by all who, like him, shall find the truth. To justify my criticism, I need only ask the reader to recall the description by the Mohammedan biographers of the person in question.