Talk:Yazidis

Theology And Ethics

Just a try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.12.219 (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Pure perfect God is the first principle -archai-.

The perfect compassionate God is the first principle of 'Pure Love'. There can not be Hell, it is well known -in oral tradition- by the very famous allegory -in the Yazidi community- of the compassionate parent can not put his/her child into the fire forever or for sometime.

By the ancient point of view, from infinite flux, all nature is an illusion -Parmenides and [1]- so is all physical experiences in the world. From this, in nature there can be only 'Abrahamic Fire' concept.

From the phenomena of infinite regression, all knowledge has an implicitly injected 'the first principle' in itself. And compassionate God doesn't need to rule explicitly at all but rules implicitly.

There is no the first principle of 'Bad' -or 'Good'- in this theology, since it doesn't define any Bad-God or any Bad-Spirit or any Bad-Angel, and since by ancient meaning, all happenings are only the works of the gods/spirits/souls in the world-or simply from the first principle, (or pure love doesn't judge)-, there is no genuine base to define something as 'Bad' (or Good) in existence. Therefore it doesn't have Good-Bad duality in itself genuinely.

The main cult of ethics is based on the myth of Mem u Zin[2]. It should be noted that the myth was around Kurds by oral tradition for a very very long time -many thousands of years- before it had been written down. It can be compared as an ethical basic cult to the cult of Socrates in ancient Greeks, or to the cult of Jesus in western world. in the Socrates cult, there is a weak phenomenal demonization of Athenians and in Jesus cult, there is a strong phenomenal demonization of Jews implicitly. Main difference in the myth of Mem u Zin is that there is no demonization of anybody or any action, but equally holification of all parties. Because all parties in the story is the producers/creators of the resulting holiness equally. And holiness equates with the perfect love in the story. It's similar to ancient Homeric Greeks worldview, but it doesn't have implicit 'women/men question' in itself.

The traditional Kurdish worldview can be traced to a very strong cult of Mother and Father in their culture and some of famous historical events also, for example Saladin's[3] treatment of Crusaders-true brotherly love towards them which even caused the anger of muslim Arabs at that time-, or Iraq President Jalal Talabani[4] openly opposed to the death penalty for Saddam Hussein who caused some of the most painful experiences for Kurdish people, Iraqis and Middle-eastern.

It can be seen that this worldview can easily be sensed as -or be equated with- the phenomena of evil by the people who believes existence of Bad-God(Zoroaster's), Sheytan(Muslims), Devil(Christians) and any strong believers of Good and Bad duality-which has implicitly injected Good God versus Bad God in itself as the first principle- in general. Simply the phenomena of the demonization of Mahatma Gandhi who had only true love, by some of Hindu nationalists who had strong dualism(good vs bad) of nationalism. And it created a phenomena of true holy Mahatma Gandhi, by the help of their action.

The phenomena of Good God versus Bad God can be the first principle of 'Hate' implicitly, by ancient point of view. And there is no 'Hate' in nature, but only love. And whatever happens, it becomes a part of nature too.

It can be said that this worldview is very ancient. It rejects the demonization of God, which is the beginning of all other demonizations. It seems that this phenomenal demonization process started-or more correctly, became very strong- between Persians-Avesta- and Indians-later Rig Vedas- than it spread out all over the world cultures and got deeper and deeper explicitly and/or implicitly during human history. But it should have been some more homogeneous smaller developments-probably something like 'women/men question'('women/men' may look like to be similar to 'the first principle') which could possibly cause something like the phenomenal weakening of love and later, a kind of starting to demonize women and/or men implicitly, or masculinize/feminize(personify) God, or attributing phenomena of hate to God(implicit good God vs bad God) or more remarkably the explicitization of God's rule(implicit Good God vs Bad God-between Egyptians and Jews-), etc.- before that time, about this process all over the world. It should have further developed as similar to the phenomena of the demonization of Mahatma Gandhi basically. But 'Truth' does not change, Mahatma Gandhi still loved after the assassination and 'Mother/Father' always loves. We all are the one.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.12.219 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 

The Ézidí in Hamduna and the saving of an US-Soldier during WW2

A friend told me a story. During WWII an US-Soldier got down in the area of the town Hamduna wich mostly inhibts Yezidi people. The Inhabitants saved him, and hold him hidden or, i barely remember this story, brought him back to his unit. After WWII he came back and helped the people to establish a water supply and other thing. Does any one has heard of this story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.144.103.73 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

hamduna is the town where i born .my grandfather was the leader and he is now over 100 years old. i konw every thing about the true story. because my family is a part of it .i like to write a book about the story, but i live in germany and my english spech is not good enough.

kindly regards r.y

r.y i am from germany too, maybe we are from the same town. when you answer i log in witzh my account and we can try to make contact. greetz t.s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.23.41.252 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Links with Freemasons

I have read various theories which try to link Yazidis to what is known as Freemasonry [5]. Are the yazidis similar to what is known as secret societies ? Links and sources are welcomed of course.

The Ézidí

Judging by the picture, the Ezidis have worn traditional clothes that are similar to the Turcoman tribes. I assume this is because of the geographical location in which they reside. Can anybody suggest something on this to enlighten me?

Mustafa

People tend to adapt local customs, to fit in. In my hometown in Germany Bergen near Celle, some of my yezidi friends wore Baseball-Caps, Baggy Pants. Typical Hip hop dress. In middle east the customs a different. Pork is a no go. But the Meshefa-Resh their holy book says nothing. Also honour killings ar not part of their religion. But they adopted local customs. hope that helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.144.103.73 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Photographs

The following link is to a site which has photographs of a Yezidi village, nothing sensational, could be any other village, I wish the article carries the link. WP discourages external links, I wonder how to go about it.

Many photographs of a Yezidi village

Yogesh Khandke (talk)

There's no problem with posting external links in an "External links" section. But the photos seems to have vanished from the link..? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio?

It seems to me that much of the text is taken literally from Encyclopaedia Iranica, with little or no rephrasing (though other parts explicitly contradicted it; I've fixed some of that). --Anonymous44 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Split

Oppose On 15 November 2009, Rago suggested that the section /* Religious beliefs */ be split off into a separate article entitled: Yazidism. (Yazidism currently redirects to this article.) So far as I can see, there has been no discussion of that proposal to date (3 April 2010). While the lead indicates that the article is about a Kurdish religion with ancient Indo-European roots, in fact the article has a broader scope dealing with concomitant culture. It seems that this may be why Rago suggested a separate article just for Yazidi religion beliefs. All-in-all, right now, I don't think that this article has strayed too far, and it is not too long, so that such a split is unnecessary. --Bejnar (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose too at the moment. There is no sign that this article will be expanded anytime soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus there would be 2 articles to police against the frequent vandalism this page suffers. Oppose as well, until someone can come up with a decent start class article on the ethnicity. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As someone who ran into a quote from the Black Book on Tumblr in a Satanic context and wound up here, I think it would be best if you didn't split the article, considering it must get many such visitors and they really should have to get through the cultural context to get to the religious beliefs. 74.180.69.189 (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Split declined. No consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 11:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction and inaccuracy? Not indo -european

The article states that the religion is Indo European. After reading the article , it seems hard to believe that a religion with so little in common with other Indo European religions, such as Greek, Roman, or Vedic, would be Indo European. in fact he article contradicts itself by saying Yazid is influenced by middle eastern religions, and the constant reference to middle eastern mythology is at odds with an Indo European origins. Middle eastern religions share nothing in common with Indo European religions, having completely unrelated origins. Millueradfa (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that it started as a cousin religion to Zoroastrianism (the heptad of angels that emanate from God compares with the Amesha Spentas), and that names and terms have changed over the years because the dominant language of the area has changed, and also to avoid persecution. The Taus in Melek Taus is related to the Greek Theos, the Germanic Tiwuz, and the Hindi Dyaus. The religion believes in reincarnation, which tends to be more of an Indo-European belief than a Semitic one (Gnostics, Kabbalists, and Sufis tend to be the Semitic groups that have some folks that accept reincarnation, otherwise it's either sheol, gehenna, or heaven). An ox is sometimes sacrificed in Yazidi rites, a carry over from Mithraism (where Mithras creates the world by slaying the cosmic bull). In Zoroastrianism, Ahriman (the devil), slays the cosmic bull as part of ruining God's creation of the world, creating the world as we now know it. Yazidiism provides a link for how the cosmic bull slayer goes from being a villain in Persia to a demiurge in more Western Mithraism. Although not present in its current form at the same time, the belief that the angel that opposed God is actually a benevolent demiurge acting for God would be a bridge, and the Yazidi got their beliefs from somewhere, be it from some proto-Mithraism or from synthesizing the two views. The schema of the four elements and their sacred purity is also inherited from Zoroastrianism. Semitic cosmologies tend to not use the four classical elements (the Sefer Yetsirah has three elements, for example). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a religious expert and mostly have the article on my watchlist because I watch a fair number of Kurdish related articles. But the above seems odd to me as a linguist; I'm very familiar with IE as a linguistic concept but is it a valid cultural concept? After all, IE languages are spread across a vast cultural range, historically from Iceland to Southern India and more recently of course the spread of IE languages as part of the colonial period. It seems so vague a term at best. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Language and culture are related. The culture that spoke proto-Indo-European had their beliefs, which developed into Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Greek mythology, Norse mythology, etc. The Yazidis stopped using only IE words to express their theology, but the actual beliefs have more in common with beliefs in cultures that spoke IE languages than with beliefs in cultures that spoke Semitic languages. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Language and culture may be related, and are sometimes related, but they are not necessarily related. This is especially the case over long periods of time and it is especially evident when one tries to parse out what may have happened during a pre-historical period. One of the best known examples is that of the Mitanni, who had a language similar to the non-Indo-European Hurrian language but who nevertheless displayed notable elements of Indo-Iranian culture. The Romans are another notable example, because they spoke an Indo-European language of the Italic family, while important aspects of their religion and culture appear to have originated with the Etruscans, who spoke a non-Indo-European language possibly originating in Asia Minor (where the Romans placed their own cultural origin, according to the Aeneid). In the English-speaking world, Halloween customs are Celtic in origin even though they are typically practiced in the English language. European May Day customs are similarly Celtic in origin, even though the only Celtic speakers on the Continent are the Bretons, who moved to Brittany from Great Britain after the Norman Conquest. In the United States, the English language predominates even though the largest white ethnic group is German; and German origins are very noticeable in local cultural traditions, particularly in terms of cuisine and particularly in the Midwest. On a separate note, though I hesitate to mention it, it is important never to forget that one of the premises of the national socialist movement in Germany during that 1920s, '30s and '40s was that there is an essential identity to language, culture and ethnicity. The national socialists were wrong about this (even by their own terms they were wrong), and it is appropriate to be extremely skeptical about anything they believed. -- Bob Bob99 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As a Hindu I find many similarities between the religious, cultural and social practices of the Yazadis and Hindus. See for example the architecture of the places of worship of the Hindus and Yazadis and Hindus which looks similar and the Muslims which is markedly different. There are many other similarities. I will get back. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody has read their main books, there can not be any reliable source at all. Only it can be said that some Yazidis believe this and that. If they have believed that there is no bad-god and/or bad-spirit at all for over 6000 years, then isn't that belief most ancient belief of humanity? In ancient meaning, if there is no bad god or bad spirit, how can it be possible 'Bad', since everything is only works of spirits/souls? No light for me in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.12.219 (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Western Literature References

Someone could add the reference in the Tom Knox novel "Genesis Secret" where the Yazidi play a prominent role and their Black Book is a main feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrn0074 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom who? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Anton LaVey

In "Wanted! God, Dead or Alive", an essay in The Book of Lucifer (the second volume in The Satanic Bible), Anton LaVey refers to the Yazidi as "a sect of Devil worshippers", and interprets their beliefs as follows:

They believe that God is all-powerful, but also all-forgiving, and so accordingly feel that it is the Devil whom they must please, as he is the one who rules their lives while here on earth.

Is this a reliable source, especially for so controversial a claim? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If the claim is that LaVey said it, it is reliable.--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Anton LaVey is not a reliable source for anything. Additionally, there is no indication why his claims about a Middle Eastern religious group are notable. And just mentioning the essay in the "Satanic Bible" is essentially using a primary source for a contentious claim, which is also a no go.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Anton LaVey is a reliable source for what Anton LaVey said, irrespective of the truth of his assertions. The claim that AL said X is not contentious, if sourced to his writings.--Michael C. Price ^talk 23:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is, how is what Anton Lavey says important to the subject of the article? He's certainly not an authority in the field, or even particularly well known for his writings on the Yazidi. The Christianity article is notably free of quotes from LaVey.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably because what LaVey wrote about Christianity has been said before, many times, down the ages. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

His comments on the Yazidi are not important enough to include in the Yazidi article. The fact that they exist is not enough to include them here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My take on this is that LaVey's opinions are reasonably notable. They are also typically stupid, offensive and ill-informed but that is a separate matter. I doubt he bothered to look into any Yazidi source material. He probably just took some mistaken external source(s) and spun it the way he wished it to be. LaVey certainly doesn't tell us anything real about Yazidis but he does show us something about western perceptions of Yazidis. I am not a fan of LaVey, but quite a lot of people are, making him more notable than he deserves to be. As Yazidis do not have a high profile in the west, there may be LaVey fans out there who know nothing of Yazidis other than what LaVey wrote about them. I don't think there is an absolute need to include his opinions here but if it is possible to weave them into a valid context then that is worth doing. That valid context would have to be an explanation of the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Yazidi beliefs by outsiders. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, if you're so convinced that Lavey's comments are notable, find a real reliable secondary source demonstrating that they are. Simply quoting his own book (or not even quoting it, as here) is not sufficient for this. Specifically, you will need to find a source showing that Lavey's comments on the Yazidi are notable in the context of a discussion of the Yazidi. Additionally it will need a real inline citation, not just a mention of the book. We don't need a random selection of every time this Middle Eastern religious group has been mentioned offhandedly in Western ephemera.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've changed your tune quite few times here, haven't you, as you dream more and more reasons for exclusion? --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ps plenty of sources here --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. My first comment was: "Anton LaVey is not a reliable source for anything. Additionally, there is no indication why his claims about a Middle Eastern religious group are notable. And just mentioning the essay in the "Satanic Bible" is essentially using a primary source for a contentious claim, which is also a no go." And you haven't addressed any of those points.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be repeating myself to point out that we've already seen that ALV is a reliable source for himself. And so on. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But why would quote him? How are his comments important to the subject of this article? And what justifies using a primary source in this circumstance?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you find anything reliable and useful let us know. But the Google Books results for Yazidi "Anton lavey" gave me exactly 12 hits, nearly all of which are about occultism or satanism rather than the Yazidi themselves (except for one which is an uncredited printout of this Wikipedia article), and none of which appear to be reliable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a major revamp

It is amazing that wikipedia tolerates such nonsense against a community. So many repetitions of the Satan allegations and devil worshipping. And that nonsense about honour killing controversy. The Yazidis are a miracle, just surviving in such adverse conditions for so long. In 60 years Hindu women in Pakistan have been hounded to giving up wearing their traditional forehead mark. (look up if you want). Population is 10 percent of what it was in 1947, the year India was partitioned. Amazingly resilient Yazidis. And all this article carries is Satan and more Satan. Disgusting. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war

I don't want an edit war. The sandbox is here: Yazidi. Please do the needful. In say 15 days. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see what this section is trying to do. Are you trying to make the claim that the Yazidi religion originated in India? If so I think we'd need much better sources than the ones provided. I think we're going to need better sources all around, actually.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the message I took from it. Responded on the sand box talk page. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not claiming anything, expect for the existance of claims that the Yazidis make of an Indian connection. Now for the quality of sources. I want the strictest standards applied. I respect Wikipedia too much for it to be filled with trash, a pity there is so much of it around. Please use the sand box discussion page or this space. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

More discussion at User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke/sandbox_Yazidi

Except for one - Kreyenboek - which mentions the already-established Indo-Iranian origin of the Kurds! - the other sources are of direly dubious quality. The spiritualist ramblings of modern new age thinkers are not reliable sources for history, nor are the suppositions by the Reverend from the 1850s that suggest the Yezidis are Hebrews, Indians and Atlanteans. On the other hand, there are many reliable modern sources that discuss the origin of the Yezidis as an indigenous Iranian faith parallel to others such as Mithraism and Zoroastrianism and influenced by contact with other faiths. Ogress _smash! 20:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Arguments

There are three editors in agreement that the claim by Yazidi's that their religion has Indian roots cannot be taken in this article. Let us examine the sources quoted by me one by one

1. First reference: http://www.yeziditruth.org This source of mine has been quoted elsewhere in this article see references 20, 21, suddenly the source has become untouchable and elicits comments like "The spiritualist ramblings of modern new age thinkers are not reliable sources for history", then how is a Orthodox convert to Islam full of fantastic ideas himself - wears them on his home page: Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis, a good source, and quoted 8 times. This site has been quoted by Foreign Policy for information about Yazidis [[6]]
2. Second reference: http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/26/Worldandnation/In_Iraq__ancient_sect.shtml This is from a Times correspondent, what is wrong with it, perhaps religion is not her field of expertise but then other similar sources are allowed see references (3), (12), (22) and (23)
3. Fourth reference: Why is Tamoyan's statement coming from a Yazidi of some standing, any poorer than any one else's.
4. Sixth reference: Is www.mideastyouth.com a $100 website?
5. Seventh reference: Badger is old because he is based in 1850, are sources circa 1911 Joseph, (15) (16) (17) in diapers?

Other comments on sources used in the article:

1. References (19) (a) (b) are pure original research and synthesis based on primary sources.
2. Encyclopaedia are not considered as good sources however they have been heavily quoted in this article reference (1) 15 instances, (13) a copy paste from some tame encyclopaedia, (14), (18) (19), (24), (29)
3. Edmond in A pilgrimage to Lalish sees pilgrims with Hindu like forehead marks [[7]]

Please we need an objective appraisal of the issue. And not prejudice. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the point we're trying to make is not that the current refs in the article are good but that we don't want to make it worse! Akerbeltz (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please personally I too hate to use the argument "see it is good there so it can be acceptable here." Please look at the sources and if you think they hold good then we can have the statements here. Don't just brush them off because the concept goes against your personal fads. If Foreign Policy can quote the so called plastic shamman sock puppet, perhaps he is misjudged and perhaps he is good enough for Wikipedia too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand that. I have no personal fads or anything against the topic; the only reason it's on my watchlist is because it's a Kurdish related topic that is frequently vandalised. I personally don't have the sources to improve the article, it's way out of my area. But that does not detract from the fact that some of the sources on the page are, well, junk. If I had the sources and the time, I'd improve the article sources first, then expand it but I have neither. But I'm hesitant to watch more unreliable sources being added. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please evaluate source one by one and then strike it right or wrong. yeziditruth has been quoted by Foreign Policy. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yezidi script

There is evidently an alphabet of some sort used to write the Yezidi scriptures, at least some of the time. Little seems to be know about it... What I have got distilled into this chart. Does anyone know more? -- Evertype·✆ 04:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Islam...?

Are the Yazidi a sect of Islam?--Splashen (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the lead section. 89.178.245.208 (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

misleading article

• While it is true that Yazidism contains traces of Zoroastrianism, most of their literature and tradition is Sufi Islamic. The Encyclopaedia of Islam even calls is a "heterodox Muslim sect".
• "Yazdânism" is a neologisms coined by a non-expert and should be used with caution.--Rafy talk 13:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I also question the accuracy of this article. I have met Yezidis, including the religious leader of one of the larger Yezidi communities in Canada, and the story of Melek Taus they told me is far more consistent with that described in a Daily Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1560714/The-Devil-worshippers-of-Iraq.html) As in this article, what I was told was sort of a twist on the tale of Lucifer: That Melek Taus was an angel sent to hell after his prideful rebellion against God until he was ultimately forgiven 40,000 years later and placed in charge of the earth as the primary angel. Completely left out of this Wikipedia article is any mention of his imprisonment in Hell. Also requiring emphasis is the fact that Melek Taus was placed in charge of the earth by God. There's a very gnostic aspect of the religion that this Wikipedia article fails to mention: According to what I have been told, they believe that God has abandoned our flawed physical world and left Melek Taus in charge, and that is why their worship is directed at Melek Taus, and not God. God is entirely disineterested in the physical world. That belief is something that likely contributes to their persecution, as well as the fact that they direct worship to Melek Taus (with his parallels to Lucifer) instead of God. Furthermore, while they do not see Melek Taus as evil (something this Wikipedia article sort of gets right), he is neither all good. He is flawed, embodying both the good and the bad of the physical world. They do not have another figure, like Satan as depicted in other religions, who embodies outright evil, so it is up to Melek Taus to represent the struggle between the two. I suspect that in public the Yezidis fail to emphasise these facts in order to distance Melek Taus from comparisons to Lucifer and to avoid the perception that they dishonour God. 211.26.193.93 (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)