Part 2 — 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 Ṭâ´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 tradition135 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 Chapter III he is declared to be the source of revelation. While this is true, there are other phrases which refer to Ṭâ´ûs as being inferior to the great God, but superior to all other gods. He was created, and is under the command of God; but he is made the chief of all.

It is not quite easy to understand the underlying idea in worshipping the devil. Some137 explain this by supposing he is so bad that he requires constant propitiation; otherwise he will take revenge and cause great misery. For this reason, it is claimed,138 they do not worship God, because he is so good that he cannot but forgive. This is the usual interpretation, and it is confirmed by the nature of the religious service rendered. It seems to partake much more of a propitiatory than of a eucharistic character, not as the natural expression of love but of fear. This reminds us at once of the Babylonian religion. According to this religion, when any misfortune overtook the worshippers, they regarded it as a sign that their deity was angry, and had therefore left them to their own resources or had become their enemy. To be thus deserted was accounted a calamity because of the innumerable dangers to which the soul was exposed from the action of the powers seen and unseen. So that as a matter of precaution, it was well to maintain a propitiatory attitude. Hence the great object of worship was to secure and retain the somewhat capricious favor of the deity.139 This is in accord with the natural feeling of man in his primitive state, which leads him rather to dread punishment for his sin than to be thankful for blessings received.

Others140 hold that the Devil-worshippers believe that their Lord is a fallen angel, now suffering a temporary punishment for his rebellion against the divine will because he deceived Adam, or because he did not recognize the superiority of Adam as commanded by God. But it is not for man to interfere in the relations of God with his angels, whether they be fallen or not; on the contrary man’s duty is to venerate them all alike. The great God will be finally reconciled to Ṭâ´ûs, and will restore him to his high place in the celestial hierarchy.

Still others141 assert that the sect does not believe in an evil spirit but as a true divinity. This theory is not generally accepted, but seems more probable than the preceding ones. For there is nothing in the sacred book to indicate that Melek Ṭâ´ûs is an evil spirit or a fallen angel. On the contrary the charge that he was rejected and driven from heaven is repudiated. The mentioning of his name is looked upon as an insult to and blasphemy against him because it is based, the Yezidis think, on the assumption that he is degraded. Finally, he is declared to be one of the seven gods, who is now ruling the world for a period of 10,000 years.

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 hagibah143 (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.

The Yezidis offer their worship to Šeiḫ ‘Adi, usually when they assemble at his shrine. This is his tomb within a temple. The latter lies in a narrow valley which has only one outlet, as the rock rises on all sides except where a small stream forces its way into a large valley beyond. The tomb stands in a courtyard, and is surrounded by a few buildings in which the guardians and the servants of the sanctuary live. In the vicinity are scattered a number of shacks, each named after a šeiḫ, and supposed to be his tomb. Toward sunset these sacred places are illuminated by burning sesame oil lamps, putting one at the entrance to each tomb in token of their respect; the light lasts but a short time. There are also a few edifices, each belonging to a Yezidi district, in which the pilgrims reside during the time of the feast; so that each portion of the valley is known by the name of the country of those who resort thither. On the lintel of the doorway of the temple, various symbols are engraved,—a lion, a snake, a hatchet, a man and a comb.145 Their mystical meaning is unknown. They are regarded as mere ornaments placed there at the request of those who furnished money for building the temple. The interior of the temple is made up of an oblong apartment which is divided into three compartments, and a large hall in the centre which is divided by a row of columns; and arches support the roof. To the right of the entrance are a platform, and a spring of water coming from the rock. The latter is regarded with great veneration, and is believed to be derived from the holy well of Zamzam at Mecca. It is used for the baptism of children and for other sacred purposes. Close by there are two small apartments in which are tombs of the saints and of some inferior personage. In the principal halls a few lamps are usually burning, and at sunset lights are scattered over the walls.

The tomb of Šeiḫ ‘Adi lies in the inner room, which is dimly lighted. The tomb has a large square cover, upon which is written Ayat al-Kursi, that is, the verse of the throne, which is the 256th verse of surat-al-Baḳarah, or Chapter II of the Koran.

“God. There is no God but He, the Living, the Abiding. Neither slumber nor sleep seizeth Him. To Him belongeth whatsoever is in heaven and whatsoever is on earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His own permission? He knoweth what has been before them and what shall be after them; yet naught of His knowledge do they comprehend, save what he willeth to reveal. His throne reacheth over the heavens and the earth, and the upholding of both burdeneth Him not. He is the High, the Great.”

It is related (in the Mishkat, Book IV, 1. 19, Part III) that ‘Ali heard Mohammed say in the pulpit, “That person who repeats the Ayat al-Kursi after every prayer shall in no wise be prevented from entering into Paradise, except by life; and whoever says it when he goes to his bedchamber will be kept by God in safety together with his house and the house of his neighbor.” Šeiḫ ‘Adi might have been in the habit of repeating this verse; and this, perhaps, led to its inscription on the tomb.

In the center of the inner room, close by the tomb, there is a square plaster case, in which are small balls of clay taken from the tomb. These are sold or distributed to the pilgrims, and regarded as sacred relics, useful against disease and evil spirits. It is said that there are three hundred and sixty lamps in the shrine of ‘Adi, which are lit every night. The whole valley in which the shrine lies is held sacred. No impure thing is permitted within its holy bounds. No other than the high priest and the chiefs of the sect are buried near the tomb. Many pilgrims take off their shoes on approaching it, and go barefooted as long as they remain in its vicinity.

Such is the sanctuary of ‘Adi, where they offer him their homage. Their worship may be divided into two kinds, direct and indirect. The former consists of traditional hymns sung by the ḳawwals, the sacred musicians of the sect. They are chanted to the sound of flutes and tambourines. The tunes are monotonous and generally loud and harsh. The latter kind consists in celebrating their religious rites with great rejoicing on the feast day of their great saint. And their ḳubla, the place to which they look while performing their holy ceremonies, is that part of the heaven in which the sun rises.

The great feast of Šeiḫ ‘Adi is held yearly on April fifteenth to twentieth, Roman calendar, when the Yezidis from all their districts come to attend the festival celebration. Before entering the valley, men and women perform their ablutions, for no one can enter the sacred valley without having first purified his body and his clothes. The people of the villages are gathered and start together, forming a long procession, preceded by musicians, who play the tambourine and the pipe. They load the donkeys with necessary carpets and domestic utensils. While marching they discharge their guns into the air and sing their war cry. As soon as they see the tower of the tomb, they all together discharge their arms.

The šeiḫs and the principal members of the priesthood are dressed in pure white linen, and all are venerable men with long beards. Only the chief and the ḳawwals and two of the order of the priesthood enter the inner court of the temple, and they always go in barefooted. They start an hour after sunset.146 The ceremony begins with the exhibition of the holy symbol of Melek Ṭâ´ûs to the priests. No stranger is allowed to witness this ceremony or to know the nature of it. This being done, they begin the rite. The ḳawwals stand against the wall on one side of the court and commence a chant. Some play on the flute, others on the tambourine; and they follow the measure with their voices. The šeiḫs and the chiefs form a procession, walking two by two; the chief priest walks ahead. A faḳir holds in one hand a lighted torch, and in another a large vessel of oil, from which he pours into the lamp from time to time. All are in white apparel except the faḳirs, who are dressed in black. As they walk in a circle, they sing in honor of Šeiḫ ‘Adi. Afterward, they sing in honor of ‘Isa (Jesus). As they proceed the excitement increases, the chants quicken, the tambourines are beaten more frequently, the faḳirs move faster, the women make tahlil with a great shouting, and the ceremony comes to an end with great noise and excitement. When the chanting is ended, those who were marching in procession kiss, as they pass by, the right side of the temple entrance, where the serpent is figured on the wall. Then the emir stands at this entrance to receive the homage of the šeiḫs and elders who kiss his hand. Afterward all that are present give one another the kiss of peace.147 After the ceremony the young men and women dance in the outer court until early in the morning.

In the morning the šeiḫs and the ḳawwals offer a short prayer in the temple without any ceremony and some kiss the holy places in the vicinity. When they end, they take the green148 cover of the tomb of Šeiḫ ‘Adi and march with it around the outer court with music. The people rush to them and reverently kiss the corner of the cloth, offering money.

After taking the cover back to its place, the chiefs and priests sit around the inner court. Kochaks at this time bring food and call the people to eat of the hospitality of Šeiḫ ‘Adi.149 After they have finished their meal, a collection is taken for the support of the temple and tomb of their saint. All people that come to the annual festival bring dishes as offerings to their living šeiḫ. After he has indicated his acceptance of them by tasting, these are given to the servants of the sanctuary. When the feast comes to an end, the people return to their several abodes.

(3.) Yezid

The third essential element in the religion of the devil-worshippers is the belief that their sect has taken its origin from Yezid, whom frequently they call God and regard as their ancestral father, to whom they trace their descent. No other worship is offered him. He is given, however, a place of honor in the court of the temple, where, on one side, there is the inscription “Melek Yezid, the mercy of God be upon him”; on the other side “Šeiḫ ‘Adi, the mercy of God be upon him.” In the corner of this court a lamp is kept burning all night in honor of the two.