This is a great website, thank you for sharing this. A very fascinating page from a much maligned people!

S

Yes, thanks for sharing this.

I've been reading quite a bit about the Yezidis lately. Almost finished Andrew Collins' From the Ashes of Angels which includes a great chapter on the Yezidis as well as several references throughout. After reading the first few chapters it became evident to me that this must have been a major source for Howard and Jackson's Pillars of Tubal Cain.

Yes, I came across this great website last year; or was it late 2009 e.v.? Who knows, but I've printed stuff off to re-read and assimilate, which should help me to place it.

It dispels a load of the myths and dubious symbolic accretions that have built up in the occult literature over the past eleven decades or so; whilst retaining others - such as the mythological self-history of the Yezidis, themselves. Blavatsky, Dion Fortune, possibly Gurdjieff, Anton La Vey and even Kenneth Grant, all have their 'white man's burdens to bear' in this particular process of misinformation, it needs to be admitted.

Won't say anymore; check it out for yourselves.
But remember 'Red Hook' !

indeed 🙂

Thanks, very interesting site that I'll delve into.

My only slight initial niggle is the little note at the bottom of the Home page that the site is "Hosted by: International Order of Gnostic Templars - USA" and wonder how exactly that squares with

I'd hope that no unintentional 'filtering' of content has taken place - the same process by which many records of pre-Christian European paganism acquired a Christian gloss by virtue of having been first written down by Christian scribes operating within certain 'given' belief systems.

More on the IOGT here - http://www.gnostictemplars.org/

Why don't you read the content and determine that for yourself. I find it highly doubtful that is the case.

I have read some and will read more. Thanks for the suggestion.

Why "highly doubtful"? You know the IOGT operate entirely 'objectively' in relation to religious/spiritual/mystical matters for sure? They claim to be reviving "The Goddess Tradition of The Original Templars" which is a pretty contentious statement.

I am not suggesting skullduggery just that it can be hard for people to leave aside their own beliefs completely when dealing with these areas. Evans-Wentz's theosophy colouring some of his ideas in "The Fairy-Faith in Celtic Countries" for example.

As long as all they are doing is Hosting material that is coming from the Yezidis and have no editorial input then it's all good. All that would have to be considered then is the reliability of their own reports of past behaviour. Satan'sAdvocaat has already alluded to "the mythological self-history of the Yezidis" but at least that is contextually directly related to their own beliefs and therefore relevant to the enquiry.

*after thought* How would I determine it's accuracy 'for myself' without being a Yezidi and therefore already knowing??

OK.

I just did a bunch of reading on the IOGT site and some of their related sites and really not wild about what I find.

They make some statements about Templar's in Scotland that are far from supported by historical documentation. They repeat some of the best known 'stories' about Rosslyn Chapel many of which have almost no foundation. The details of Celtic religion and Deities owes an awful lot to modern Wicca and not so much to actual Iron Age pagan Celtic religion. There is a Welsh Goddess mentioned as if she was Scottish for just one basic error. They even claim that an early Celtic-Christian saint was actually the Goddess of Edinburgh. I used to live near her well and actually researched her and it (it's housed in a remarkable structure) and never came across that tid-bit of 'New Age Wimsy'.

So, not too impressed as far as _they_ go. The Yezidi site may have none of these issues.

The problem with the "Yezidi truth" site is that it´s mixing correct information with things which are false and spurious, and things which are out their own interpretation of Melek Taus, stating that this is the way yezidis view the angel.

Worth to notice is that the IOGT people apparently are influenced by Chumbley in their interpretation of Melek-Taus stating that he is the same as Al-Khdir. An understanding I´ve never seen yezidis do, even though he is some times revered among the yezidis.

I agree with amadan-De and hardly thinks that there are any yezidis behind this site.

Fun althought that the subject was raised here.

There is a great essay on the Yezidis by Peter Lamborn Wilson called "Iblis, the Black Light" (in Sacred Drift: Essays on the Margin of Islam, a fantastic book). His conclusions, as far as I can remember - I have lost my copy - basically confirm that there is not that much substance to the romantic image of the Yezidis as the worshippers of Iblis, or Shaitan if you prefer. Coming from Wilson, who is known as a champion of heretical trends in Islam (see also his mind-blowing Scandal: Essays in Islamic Heresy), this strikes as rather convincing conclusion.

Even though Lamborn Wilson is an interesting writer he is hardly any expert on the yezidis.

Of course the yezidis are worshipping Shaitan. What almost no one seems to understand is that one should ask the question "What does this mean for them?"

I´t does not mean that they are worshipping "Evil" (whatever that term means). Their understanding of Shaitan is most probably heavily influenced by sufis like Al-Halladj. Shaitan is having a more ambigious role in Islam and among sufis in contrast to how Satan is being understood in Christianity and among Jews.

Melek Taus is also an ambigious character which at the same time is a hypostase of God and the revolting Angel. He is said to consist of of both light and fire, just like the yezidis themselves. They are acknowleding both the godly and aswell the satanic part of themselves.

Precisely 2109. "Who is Melek Tawus to the Yedizi?" He's the Peakcock Angel, who refused to bow to Adam, and the Yezidi revere him for that. Not to the Muslims, to whom he is the Guardian of the Gates of Hell. For the Yezidi, he is one of seven archangels, the Chief of them, actually, and is the representative of God on this earth, bestowing responsibilities, blessings and curses as he sees fit: it is not for the Children of Adam to question him.

I've studied what I could of them for a couple of decades now. E.S. Drower's "The Peacock Angel" is the earliest reliable anthropology study I can find. (This book is now in public domain and can be found on-line) But the information in it is 70 years old. Reliable current information is much more difficult to get. Many Yezidi fled Iraq to escape the Kurdish Genocide attempted by Saddam Hussein. I am given to understand they have a large community of expatriates in Germany now.

There is a reason it is so difficult to get reliable information about the Yezidi --You have to be a Yezidi by birth-- they don't allow outsiders to convert. I don't trust the websites previously mentioned. There are Westerners who see this little-known Sect as an opportunity to exploit their own bizzare beliefs and odd agendas. I don't trust them.

The Yedizi are *also* a difficult people to defend. Their mores and folkways in regards to women are as restrictive as Sharia Law and worse Romanische Tabus (which are pretty restrictive in themselves). A couple of years ago, 1000 men from the Yezidi Kurdish community of Mosul killed a teenager who's only crime was running away to marry a Muslim man whom she loved and converting to his religion. http://www.aina.org/news/20070425181603.htm
There was a *very* disturbing video taken of the incident, I don't know if the link at the site still works.

Actually, I understand that the Yezidis are forbidden to say the name "Shaitan." The Djinn Iblis' tale is identical to Yezidis, except that Iblis is punished by God for refusing to kneel before Adam. In the Yezidis tale, Melik Tawus was the first created Archangel, and is told by God to bow to no one; so later when Adam is created, and God suggests that the Archangels kneel before Adam, Melik refuses to kneel, remembering what he was told when he was created. It turns out that this was a test, and that Melik Tawus passed the test-- If God had "commanded" him to kneel, he would have had to, as the Will of God will always be done.

The video is gone but there is still a description of the events on the video.

We shouldn't be studying the Yedizi- we should be at war with them. They are anti-Thelemic.

🙄

The sort of statement that we should be at war with the Yezidis, who it seems do not recruit or seek to extend their influence in any way, makes me feel anti 'thelemic'. 'Thelemic' as an adjective that is.

OK

Of what relevance is it that they do not recruit or seek to extend their influence in any way when they are committing human rights abuses like that? And why does MY statement make YOU feel anti-Thelemic?

As for MichaelStaley just giving me a "rolleyes" image... I take it you don't agree that they are anti-Thelemic? How can they not be when they fail to recognize that every man and every woman is a star, and seek to deny the True Will of others? Liber Oz is pretty clear on the matter.

Alot of peoples in most parts of the world fail to recognize the value of life, much less the divinity of every man and woman.
By all means graspee, go to war with them, if that be your Will.
But I think that both the actions of the Yezidi men that committed this atrocity and your statement as well show the folly of religious thinking when stripped of it's more important mystical elements.

I think that, this incident aside, it's rather obvious that the Yezidi simply wish to left to themselves. I think every culture should have that right. But hey, maybe not with the Thelemic Ubermensch whose come with guns blazing, saving the day by forcing them into seeing the relevance of his own world view and the folly (capital F?) of their ways.

you get the triple eye roll from me graspee. 🙄 🙄 🙄

Agreed.

When I said we should be at war with them I meant more a sort of ideological war- a stance of Thelemites being "against them". I wasn't actually suggesting that any particular country should declare war against them, although nowadays of course no-one ever declares war, it's all "enforcing no-fly zones".

@Aeternitas: "Alot of peoples in most parts of the world fail to recognize the value of life, much less the divinity of every man and woman. "

So true that. The Yedizis are quite a polygot of religion-- Their culture has absorbed elements of Judeo-Islamic law and mythology, along with Persian Zoroasterian mythos.

I wonder what they think of Magick.

I don't think "declaring war" on them is necesarily the most practical approach. That's what every single Arab nation has ever done, and they're still around. Lots of them.

Imagine that. Almost the entire surrounding cultures, hundreds of millions of people, Arabs, all calling you devil-worshippers and plotting your extermination. For 1300 years. In the desert.

Imagine still being around in 2011 in enough numbers to still register as a distinct culture.

I don't think Thelema will obliterate them. They're used to having books waved at them violently by shouty violent fanatics of their own.

Let me throw this text into the pot:

Success is thy proof : argue not ; convert not ; talk not overmuch !

Whether someone or something is "unthelemic" or even "anti-thelemic" is not - believe it or not - the sole yardstick of inherent worth. Try the following example for size.

At the outset of a Commentary circa 1919 on Chapter One of The Book of the Law, Crowley remarked:

"Aiwaz is not as I had supposed a mere formula, like many angelic names, but is the true most ancient name of the God of the Yezidi, and thus returns to the highest Antiquity. Our work is therefore historically authentic, the rediscovery of the Sumerian Tradition."

There are remarks in similar vein elsewhere in Crowley's work, I believe. It's natural therefore for some - irrespective of how we might choose to interpret Liber OZ - to take an interest in the Yezidi. Not you, though; you want to declare war on them because they are "unthelemic".

That's why I rolled my eyes.

You want to rage an ideaological war with a people who resisted idealogical warfare against them for hundreds of years, a people who really just want to be left alone? In what way would that be a worthwhile pursuit?

Really?
And here I thought you were proposing doing something difficult.
I'm utterly surprised that what you meant was to talk a lot about Oz and do nothing.

93
Swami

"Thou shalt not should on thyself or others."

Because if we win, if we make them worship our god, er Will, then we can feel superior and strut about saying, "I just knew that my dad could beat up your dad!"

Graspee has sounded The Call to Arms! Stand fast. We must ensure that the Yezidi have a laptop, a solar charger and a satellite internet connection; then we can digitally rain down flowery verses (versuses) upon their consciousness. Hold! Stand Fast! Raise the spell of Ra-Hoor-Khuit! Can't you taste the mental (and highly astral-emotional) Victory?

"Reliable current information is much more difficult to get."

Not really. Philip G Kreyenbroek has written the standard work on yezidis "Yezidism: its background, observances and textual tradition" which in a great way outlines the basic tenets about the yezidis. It also includes several qewls (hymns) which before the publication of this book was almost impossible to retreive for outsiders.

"The Yedizi are *also* a difficult people to defend. Their mores and folkways in regards to women are as restrictive as Sharia Law and worse Romanische Tabus (which are pretty restrictive in themselves). A couple of years ago, 1000 men from the Yezidi Kurdish community of Mosul killed a teenager who's only crime was running away to marry a Muslim man whom she loved and converting to his religion. http://www.aina.org/news/20070425181603.htm
There was a *very* disturbing video taken of the incident, I don't know if the link at the site still works."

Actually as I have come to understand they have a much more tolerate view in regards to women. A friend of mine have a female yezidi friend who has written a longer paper on University level about the place of women in yezidism. According to her research yezidis are much more tolerate towards women then muslims in general are.

From a yezidi point of view I can understand their actions. The identity of being a yezidi is something which is extremly connected to the group. To leave the group is to leave God and the elected people. An analogy of how the yezidis experience it could probably be done of how most jews would experience it if a jewish girl during the holocaust would fall in love with a german nazi, leave her religion and marry him.

I don´t think that the event should be seen as misogyn per se. Yezidis have also persecuted male yezidis which have married outside the religion.

"Aiwaz is not as I had supposed a mere formula, like many angelic names, but is the true most ancient name of the God of the Yezidi, and thus returns to the highest Antiquity. Our work is therefore historically authentic, the rediscovery of the Sumerian Tradition."

Crowley seems to have let several loose threads in his works which could be elaborated and worked on by any diligent thelemite. Strange that only Grant, in my knowledge, has elaborated on this identification between Aiwas and Melek-Taus.

If you Michael, or anyone else, know of someone who has done this I´d love to read about it.

No. There is a significant difference between experiencing similar reactions to another person's choices, and killing that person because of their choices. Your analogy failed.

Just persecuted, not murdered? Sounds like misogyny to me.

Thanks for the book reference 2019. Added it to the list - though it appears to suffer from the traditional academic publication problem of being pretty expensive 🙁

FWIW I understand the analogy fine and have no problem with the idea that a Jewish woman who married a Nazi during the Holocaust would be subject to potentially fatal attacks, if the circumstances allowed. Pretty horrible things were done to women of many backgrounds who were deemed to have 'fraternised' too closely.
@mika you are making allowances for English possibly not being 2019s first language? I understand the thrust of both statements perfectly.

"No. There is a significant difference between experiencing similar reactions to another person's choices, and killing that person because of their choices. Your analogy failed."

The action of the yezidis could easily be understood as identical of how muslims for example stone a women who has comitted adultery. And be bunched together as the same thing in the eyes of outsiders. Even though the actions would be similar or identical it´s worth pointing out from what direction people are coming when they do something.

If it was my choice I would chose that no one would die because of such reasons. Though I can relate more to the yezidis feelings in this case then muslims killing a women for adultery.

The analogy was toward a hypothetical case among Jews and because of that we can´t say wether the hypothetical jews would kill the girl or not. The analogy was not toward the actions but to the background to the action and how the yezidis probably experiences it.

"Just persecuted, not murdered? Sounds like misogyny to me."
Misogyny is something larger then one case you read about. What you writes is like that if the yezidi would have been a boy the yezidis would directly have been misoandry.

Perhaps they are to some extent, perhaps not. Seen in the context to most of their neighbours they are not.

"Thanks for the book reference 2019. Added it to the list - though it appears to suffer from the traditional academic publication problem of being pretty expensive"

You are welcome. Another book which tries to sum up the whole religion is Survival among the Kurds. Have not read it yet but it´s often included in lists of references in articles and books written by scholars who writes about the yezidis, so I´ll guess it´s good.

Oh, well that's okay then. And if the Natural Rights of the Individual are subverted in the interest of the ancient but artificial contrivances of some group, that's okay, too. And if Individual Identity is lost amongst the herd, (each of whom only follow the asshole right in front of them) that's fine, as well. Sure, I see no problem with this at all, so long as Crowley noted some connection between this group and Aiwass. 🙄

So a few of you decided to just take the piss out of me rather than agreeing that these are a pretty abhorrent bunch of people it seems. Bear in mind that Crowley didn't have all the facts about them that we now have, so just because he may have thought they were cool/groovy/worthy of study (and the quote from Crowley which someone offered a few posts above certainly doesn't even show him going that far), doesn't mean that we should think that too, or that Crowley would hold the same opinion were he around now.

And shiva, with your "Thou shalt not should on thyself or others." quote... Are you saying that if I go through all your past posts, you've never once yourself said "We should..." ? Hmm?

If debating anything in this forum means being so careful with language that it becomes like riding a unicycle through a minefield, I don't think I'll bother.

Great! I'm short the $120.00 they want for it. Lend me your copy?

No?

'Much more difficult to get' sounds about right to me, then. But I appreciate you citing this source. Pity I'm 30 years out of the University, else I might persuade the Chief Librarian to purchase a copy.

Please don't tell me that the Yezidi are "more tolerant" than Muslims.
Here's an excellent Islam 101 article on "Gender Equality in Islam."
http://www.islam101.com/women/equity.html

It's *all* whitewash as far as I'm concerned. One thousand Yezidi men stoned a Yezidi woman for marrying a Muslim and converting to Islam.
That's indefensible.

Yeah, that would be just as important as whether or not an individual among this group has the right to to live in the way that he wills to do; to work as he will, to play as he will, to rest as he will, to die when and how he will; to eat what he will, to drink what he will, to dwell where he will, to move as he will on the face of the earth; to think what he will, to speak what he will, to write what he will, to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will, to dress as he will; to love as he will, when, where, and with whom ye will. Yeah, what of their Magick?

I'm puzzled.
Who above has said that the Yezidis were right to kill the unfortunate young woman and defended their right to do so? (*not going anywhere near Liber Oz - there is not a pole long enough*)
What I am getting is that it is suggested that their actions should be seen in context and not judged in isolation from a comfortable remove. Not so long ago similarly extreme violence was meted out in parts of the US if one half of a couple had the temerity to be the wrong colour. Nobody would suggest that that or the Yezidi case was in anyway a good way of behaving - at best we can hope that it is a developmental stage that the society in question can move past without requiring that they become a copy of whatever society we happen to live in and whose flaws we are consequently somewhat blind to.

As if anyone were suggesting foreign intervention or nation-building here. I am suggesting that 'Do what thou wilt shall be whole of the Law.' Full stop. There is no nation on earth which is presently in full compliance.

Um. Bit of a stretch from what I actually said. Nevermind.

Perhaps you aren't aware that your analogy is not hypothetical. Some Jewish women did marry Nazis during the holocaust, for a variety of reasons, mainly survival. They were not hunted down and killed for it - at least, not by other Jews.

Here's one of the more famous of them:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/edith.shtml

Anyway, any analogy that compares the actions of people who are in a crisis situation with other peoples' "normal operating conditions" will fail. Feel free to try again.

The background to the action has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a small group of men trying to maintain power over their insular community, spiced with a heavy dose of fear of female sexuality and freedom. End of story.

And still are done. So, what's your point? What does this have to do with the Yezidis and this thread?

....it was a reference to the possibility that a Jewish woman who married a Nazi may well have experienced 'rough-treatment' as a result. Interesting that you seem to imply that you know how every single case of this kind was resolved - gotta source? Or maybe I'm being overly literal now (it must be my turn....)

Out of here - got an appointment to oppress some 'others'.

'Much more difficult to get' sounds about right to me, then. But I appreciate you citing this source. Pity I'm 30 years out of the University, else I might persuade the Chief Librarian to purchase a copy.

University libarys are truly a great thing. Especially if you´re able to lend books after your time as a student.

"Please don't tell me that the Yezidi are "more tolerant" than Muslims.
Here's an excellent Islam 101 article on "Gender Equality in Islam."
http://www.islam101.com/women/equity.htm l"

What is relevant is not doxa but praxis. So you have a problem with people being killed? A decent act of you would then be to condemn the genocide of thousands of yezidis by muslims in their area during the last hundred of years. Only killed because of their religion. You consider that "tolerance"? eh?

To not wanting to see or understand the context that something is happening in is aching to think that the simplest explanation always is the best. Everything happens in a context and to avoid looking at it makes one self know less of what is going on.

"The background to the action has nothing to do with religion"

It has everything to do with the religion in this case. For yezidis living in kurdistan the identity is to a very large extent created around the religion. If you don´t know this you have not done your homework. Of course there are patriarchal structures present (where on earth is it not?) though they are not as decisive as the things that I have mentioned.

Amadan-De perfectly writes my answer to you.
"Interesting that you seem to imply that you know how every single case of this kind was resolved - gotta source?"

Crowley's reference has clearly nothing whatever to do with whether or not he considered the Yezidi "cool/groovy/worthy of study". He is highlighting a connection, not giving the Yezidi his personal stamp of moral approval.

No, we wouldn't want to be too harsh with anyone, even with the sort of medieval-minded mothers who plague the planet with ideas long past the expiration dates of their validity. Of course, prior to their extinction, "every effort should be made to bring them to Freedom." -AC

Camlion, if you want to join my personal war against sharia and the Yezidis plus any other scum-sucking groups who would deny people their rights then I'd be happy to welcome you.

Bear in mind that since we (I) have no army or military hardware or international presence, it's mainly a conceptual war, which will be fought by writing stuff on forums and seething behind the monitor at the injustice of the world...

Crowley's work abounds with loose ends, as does that of many others, and it's in the course of following up those loose ends that a body of work is continued and developed.

Best wishes,

Michael.

I'm in, although action within one's sphere of influence need not be confined to seething. 🙂

Agreed, Michael, but I believe that sometimes straws are mistaken for threads. Each to their own, of course.

In response to some of the observations and criticisms leveled at the Yezidis, there is an in-depth article on the Wikipedia site that uses the spelling Yazidi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazid i"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidi

When the information on the Wikipedia page is compared to the information provided at the site I linked to in the first post of this thread, I would say the information provided at the latter site is essentially correct, although sugar-coated and with a bit of creative syncretic license taken by the author of the pages.

I would not be surprised to learn that Crowley derived much of his information about the Yezidis from Devil Worship, the Sacred Books and Traditions of the Yezidiz, by Isya Joseph, published in 1919; on page 155 of the book there is a familiar statement:

“It is interesting to note that, in the history of religion, the god of one people is the devil of another.”

Compare the statement to one made by Aleister Crowley in Magick in Theory & Practice:

“‘The Devil’ is historically, the God of any people one personally dislikes.”

The similarity in the statements is striking.

Here is a link to a photocopy of Joseph's book--be sure to check out the symbol of "The Devil" on the first page:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FSIsAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=isya+joseph&source=bl&ots=K645VCpEp9&sig=jRAbydrqdo9JT8uLykb0TFOSUIM&hl=en&ei=bsywTfPGL8qztwfI44WEDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=fals e"> http://books.google.com/books?id=FSIsAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=isya+joseph&source=bl&ots=K645VCpEp9&sig=jRAbydrqdo9JT8uLykb0TFOSUIM&hl=en&ei=bsywTfPGL8qztwfI44WEDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

A version of the book that is easier to read can be found on sacred-texts.com:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/asia/sby/index.ht m"> http://www.sacred-texts.com/asia/sby/index.htm

A question for Michael Staley, or anyone that may have an answer: did Crowley arrive at a connection between Aiwass and Shaitan through language, or was the connection a mystical perception?

A mystical perception.