Chapter II: The Essential Elements in Yezidism

Although comparatively few in number, ignorant, and practically without a literature of any sort, the followers of Yezid are not without definitely formulated doctrines of faith which bind them together as a sect, and distinguish them from every other religious body. They cherish two fundamental beliefs. They believe in a deity of the first degree, God; and in a deity of the second degree, who, they seem to think, is composed of three persons in one, Melek Ṭâ´ûs, Šeiḫ ‘Adi and Yezid.[130]

I

THE YEZIDI VIEW OF GOD

It is not easy to discover whether the conception of God, which exists to-day among the Yezidis, however shadowy, has come from Mohammedan or Christian sources, or whether it comes from that primitive stage where the worship of God and of inferior deities exists side by side. One thing, however, is apparent, and that is that the Yezidi notion of God does not seem to be influenced by any “positive religion” which traces its origin to the teachings of a great religious founder, who spoke as the organ of a divine revelation, and deliberately departed from the traditional religion. The Yezidis’ idea of God is rather an image left on their mind than the result of any reflection. Hence, simple as it is, this conception is not so easy to define. The notion, so prominent in Greek philosophy, of God as an existence absolute and complete in himself, unchangeable, outside of time and space, etc., is unknown in Yezidi theology. So also the theocratic conception of Jehovah in Judaism is foreign to the dogma of this sect. Not even the Mohammedan idea of God as an absolute ruler, and the distinctive notion which the Christians have of God as Christ-like in character, are to be found in the religion of the devil-worshippers. And we have accustomed ourselves to think of the Supreme Being in these conventional terms. There is one element, however, which may be traced to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, namely, the belief in a personal God. But Yezidism holds that this deity is only the creator of the universe and not its sustainer. Its maintenance, according to this system, is left to the seven gods. Another element which may be said to be a remnant of some other religions is the idea of a transcendent God. But in this point, as in the other, the notion of transcendentalism in the religion of the devil-worshippers is not of the same degree as that of the other religions. The former conceives of the Almighty as retiring far away, and as having nothing to do with the affairs of the world, except once a year, on New Year’s day, when he sits on his throne, calls the gods unto him, and delivers the power into the hands of the god who is to descend to the earth. To sum up, the Yezidis’ conception of a personal God is transcendental and static of the extreme type. In this it resembles somewhat the Platonic idea of the absolute. They call God in the Kurdish Khuda, and believe that he manifested himself in three different forms; in the form of a bird, Melek Ṭâ´ûs; in the form of an old man, Šeiḫ ‘Adi; and in the form of a young man, Yezid. They do not seem to offer him a direct prayer or sacrifice.

II

THE DEITY OF THE SECOND DEGREE

1. MELEK Ṭ´ÛS

A distinguished modern scholar (see the printed text, p. 80, lines 12-35) argues that Ṭâ´ûs is the god Tammuz. His argument is that the word Ṭâ´ûs must embody an ancient god, but owing to the obscurity in which the origin of Yezidism and the being of Melek Ṭâ´ûs are wrapped, it is very difficult to say which god is meant. And to determine this, he assumes that the term does not come from the Arabic word Ṭâ´ûs, but was occasioned by some “folk-etymology,” and that we must look, therefore, for some god-name which resembles the word Ṭâ´ûs. Taking this as a starting point, the critic calls attention to the fact that in Fihrist, p. 322, l. 27f, which treats of the feasts and gods of the Ḥarranians, we read that the god Tauz had a feast in middle of Tammuz. He infers from this that the god Tauz is identical with Melek Ṭâ´ûs. And to the question who this god Tauz is, he answers it is Tammuz. To justify his explanation, the writer contends that the Yezidis speak in Kurdish, and according to Justi’s _Kurdische Grammatik_, p. 82ff, the change of meem to waw in this language is frequent.[131]

However plausible this process may seem to be, philologically it cannot here yield a satisfactory conclusion. For it is based on wrong premises. It is not true that the word Ṭâ´ûs signifies an ancient deity. It denotes the devil and nothing else. This is so clear to the Yezidis, or to anyone acquainted with their religion, as to leave no need for further discussion. And to question the religious consciousness of a sect is to engage in pure speculation. Likewise, the method of determining this supposed god by the name of some deity resembling it is objectionable. There are many such names. One might also infer that the sect worship Christ under the form of the devil. This theory has actually been advanced.—_Theatre de la Turquie_, 364. The statement that in Kurdish the letter meem is changed to waw frequently is untenable, if one would set it up as a grammatical rule to explain such phenomena. What is more, the Kurds pronounce the name tammuz, and nothing else, unless some one has a physiological difficulty which will not permit him to close his lips, so that instead of saying tammuz, he would mutter taouz. The following are a few of many instances to show that meem is not changed to waw in Kurdish, even in words of Arabic origin: ‘Amelie ṣaliḥ (good works), zamanie aḫerat (the last day), the well of Zamsam, Mohammed, and Mustafa (the chosen one), when applied to the prophet, Melek (king), when applied to Ṭâ´ûs. Further the assumption that Ṭâ´ûs does not come from the Arabic Ṭâ´ûs is unverifiable. Unquestionably the attempt to trace this term to tauz, then to Tammuz, was suggested to Professor Lidzbarski by the fact that ammuz was the name of an ancient Babylonian god, and that Abu Sayyid Wahb ibn Ibrahim, quoted by an-Nedim, an Arab author of the tenth century, states that the god Tauz has a feast in his honor on the fifteenth of Tammuz (_Fihrist_, p. 322). But according to the author of “_Die Sabier und Sabismus_” (p. 202) the original form of this word is unknown.

Not only the inference which identifies Ṭâ´ûs with Tammuz is based on wrong premises; but, in the Yezidi conception of Melek Ṭâ´ûs, there are no traces of the notion which is held respecting Tammuz. The latter was originally a sun-god, and son of Ea and the goddess Sirdu, and the bridegroom of the goddess Ištar. The legendary poems of Babylonia described him as a shepherd, cut off in the beauty of youth, or slain by the boar’s tusk in winter, and mourned for long and vainly by the goddess Ištar. The god Tammuz made his way to Canaan, Cyprus, and thence to Greece. “He had ceased to be the young and beautiful sun-god, and had become the representative of the vegetation of spring, growing by the side of the canals of Babylonia, but parched and destroyed by the fierce heat of the summer. Hence in Babylonia his funeral festival came to be observed in the month of June, and in Palestine two months later. Tammuz had changed his character in passing from country to country, but the idea of him as a slain god, and of his festival as the idealization of human sorrow, a kind of “All Souls Day,” was never altered wherever he was adored.”[132] Such beliefs are not found in the Yezidi view of their King Peacock. On the contrary his festival is for them the occasion of joy and pleasure.

I conclude, then, that Ṭâ´ûs is the Arabic word meaning peacock, just as Melek is the Arabic word meaning king or angel. The sect write it, pronounce it, and believe it to be so. The faith of the sect finds expression in the fact that they represent their angel Azazil in the form of the peacock.

It seems to me that the real question is not what Melek Ṭâ´ûs is, but how the devil-god came to be symbolized by the image of a bird. This question finds an answer in the fact that the worship of a bird appears to have been the most ancient of idolatry. It is condemned especially in Deut. 4: 16, 17: “Lest ye corrupt yourselves and make a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air.” And Layard, in his _Nineveh and Its Remains_, vol. II, p. 462, gives the sketch of a bird from one of the slabs dug up at Nimrud. He remarks that the Iyuges, or sacred birds, belonged to the Babylonian and probably also to the Assyrian religion. They were a kind of demons, who exercised a peculiar influence over mankind, resembling the feroher of Zoroastrianism. The oracles attributed to Zoroaster describe them as powers anointed by God.

Their images, made of gold, were in the palace of the king of Babylonia. According to Philostratus they were connected with magic. In Palestine the dove was sacred for the Phoenicians and Philistines. The Jews brought accusation against the Samaritans that they were worshippers of the dove. Sacred doves were found also at Mecca. Nasar (eagle) was a deity of the tribe of Ḥamyar.[133]

A question suggesting itself is how the Yezidi god came to be designated by the form of a peacock. This bird is a native of Ceylon, and not of Mesopotamia or Kurdistan where the Yezidis live.[134] The answer may be found in the Muslim tradition[135] that when the first parents forfeited heaven for eating wheat, they were cast down upon earth. Eve descended upon ‘Arafat; Adam at Ceylon; the peacock at Gabul, and Satan at Bilbays. In this myth the devil and the peacock are figured as sharing the same penalty at the same time. According to Surah 2, 28-31, the crime of the former was pride, but nothing is said about the guilt of the latter. We learn, however, from other sources, that the bird in question is thought of as a symbol of pride. In his article “Peacock,” in the Enc. Brit., vol. 18, p. 443, Professor A. Newton says: “The bird is well known as the proverbial personification of pride. It is seldom kept in large numbers for it has a bad reputation for doing mischief in gardens.” Hence we may infer that the notion of the peacock as a symbol of pride together with the Koranic idea of Satan’s sin led to the formation of the myth; that this story was current among the followers of Yezid bn Unaisa; and that, under the influence of the devil-worshippers of Persia the old tradition lost its original significance, and came to be understood to represent the peacock as a symbol of the god-devil.

Among the three branches of the deity in the second degree, Melek Ṭâ´ûs holds an important place in the theology of the Yezidis. The language used in his praise is so elevated that one is led to think that he is identical with God. Some scholars deny this theory on the ground that the principal prayer of these people is directed to God and no mention is made of King Peacock. Hence they contend also that no direct worship is offered to the latter deity.[136] It seems to me that such a contention is not justifiable. In the first place, the people themselves confess their loyalty to the chief angels. Moreover, the expression in this prayer, “Thou hast neither feather, nor wings, nor arms, nor voice” (see p. 74) is more applicable to the symbol Peacock than to God. There can be no doubt, I think, that in the conception of the sect ‘Azazil appears to be identical with God. This fact finds definite expression in the Book of Jilwah. In Chapter I he is represented as being from eternity to eternity, as having absolute control of the world, as being omnipresent and omnipotent and unchangeable. In Chapter II he is said to appear in divers manners to the faithful ones; and life and death are determined by him. And in