Tawûsî Melek

Tawûsî Melek (Kurmancî Tawûsî Melek, “Peacock Angel”) is the central figure of Êzîdî theology and cosmology. He is regarded as the first and highest of the seven holy beings (Heft Sirr, “Seven Secrets” or “Seven Mysteries”) whom the one God Xwedê brought forth from his own light before the creation of the material world. Tawûsî Melek is the supreme intermediary between the incomprehensible, transcendent Xwedê and the created world, the vicegerent of God on Earth, as well as the administrator and preserver of the cosmic order (Kreyenbroek 1995; Allison 2001; Encyclopaedia Iranica, “Yazidis”).

For the Êzîdî, Tawûsî Melek is not an independent deity alongside Xwedê, but an emanation of the one God, the visible, active expression of a deity that itself remains remote and directly inactive. Whoever venerates Tawûsî Melek thereby venerates Xwedê himself (Kreyenbroek 1995; Açıkyıldız 2010; Omarkhali 2017). In the words of Khanna Omarkhali, “nature with its countless manifestations of light and darkness emanates from a single source, namely Tawûsî Melek”, he is thus himself the first emanation of the divine essence (Sur) and at the same time the channel through which this essence flows into the world (Omarkhali 2017).

Important at the outset: In the Êzîdî tradition Tawûsî Melek is never understood as “Devil,” “Iblis,” “Şeytan,” or a fallen angel. This equation stems from polemical foreign literature, Muslim heresiology, and colonial-missionary ethnography, and projects Abrahamic-dualistic categories onto a strictly monotheistic, non-dualistic belief system. It contradicts the Êzîdî primary sources entirely (Kreyenbroek 1995; Asatrian & Arakelova 2014). The refuted accusation is named explicitly and dismantled further below.

1. Name and Meaning

The name is composed of tawûs (“peacock”) and melek (“angel,” from the Semitic root m-l-k). “Peacock Angel” is therefore to be understood literally: Tawûsî Melek is the angel whose emblem is the peacock. Alongside this, the Êzîdî address him with honorific titles such as Melek Tawûs, Şahê Meran (in some hymns), and above all as Padîşahê, the “King” or “Lord of this World” (Kreyenbroek 1995; Omarkhali 2017).

The element melek is of Semitic origin and related to Arabic malak / Hebrew malʾāk (“messenger, angel”); the Kurdish-Êzîdî tradition has organically integrated it into its own angelology. Scholars have pointed out that the combination of a Semitic concept of the angel with an Old Iranian-shaped monotheism of light is characteristic of the historical layering of the Êzîdî religion in the northern Mesopotamian–Iranian borderlands (Asatrian & Arakelova 2014; Kreyenbroek 1995).

Because of the religious dread of pronouncing other names, a strict linguistic taboo traditionally prevailed: the Êzîdî avoid certain words, among them explicitly the Arabic Şeytan, entirely, because even uttering a foreign name for the “evil principle” is considered impure (Kreyenbroek 1995). The taboo reaches further and also affects similar-sounding everyday words: terms that resemble Şeytan or contain the Arabic consonant are avoided or paraphrased; in part it is considered offensive to use certain sounds in the presence of the devout. This purity taboo was later paradoxically misinterpreted by outsiders as “proof” of alleged devil worship, as if one were concealing a name one secretly venerated, while in fact it is the exact opposite: the ritual distancing from evil (see Section 5).

2. Theological Position: Vicegerent of the One God

2.1 Xwedê and the Doctrine of Emanation

At the center of Êzîdî belief stands Xwedê: the one, sole God (also Xwedawend, Êzdan, Padîşah). According to the hymn tradition, Xwedê has “1,001 names” (in other traditions 3,003), yet remains transcendent and does not himself intervene directly in the world (Kreyenbroek 1995; Omarkhali 2017). The creation and governance of the world is carried out by the Heft Sirr, the seven holy angels who emerged from Xwedê’s light and share in his essence (Sûr / Sirr, “divine essence / mystery”).

The key term Sur (also Sirr) deserves particular attention. Sur denotes the divine essence or the “mystery” that proceeds from Xwedê; according to Omarkhali, this essence possesses a personality and a will of its own and represents the Divine itself. In Êzîdî understanding, Tawûsî Melek is the angel who has “direct access to God’s Sur,” and is at the same time conceived as the first emanation of this Sur (Omarkhali 2017; Kreyenbroek 1995). This explains why the hymns often name Tawûsî Melek and Xwedê in one breath without thereby abolishing monotheism: the angel is not a second divine being, but the personal expression of the one divine essence in the world.

This doctrine is a doctrine of emanation: the created proceeds step by step from the Divine, similar to the late-antique Neoplatonic and Gnostic conceptions in which the world flows from the One through descending stages (Rodziewicz 2014/2018; Kreyenbroek 1995). The relationship is not hierarchical in the sense of rebellion and submission, but functional: Xwedê remains absolutely transcendent, while Tawûsî Melek, as the active, creative principle, realizes the divine intention in the material world. In his study of the Heft Sur, Artur Rodziewicz has worked out the proximity of this structure to the late-antique angelology and emanation doctrine of northern Mesopotamian Harran, without reducing Êzîdîsm to it (Rodziewicz 2014/2018).

2.2 Tawûsî Melek as “Lord of this World”

Among the seven angels, Tawûsî Melek takes the lead (pre-eminent among the Heptad, as the Encyclopaedia Iranica puts it). Xwedê entrusted to him “all the affairs of the world” (Kreyenbroek 1995). He is regarded as the Lord of this World, responsible for everything that happens in the world, in the good as in the difficult. According to the traditional imagery, he “distributes responsibilities, blessings, and misfortunes as he sees fit” (Encyclopaedia Iranica). This does not mean, however, that he is the source of evil: in Êzîdî thought there is no independent, absolute evil and no cosmic adversary of God. According to Êzîdî conception, the source of evil lies in the heart and mind of the human being himself, not in Tawûsî Melek (Kreyenbroek 1995; Asatrian & Arakelova 2014). What humans experience as suffering or trial is understood within the framework of the divine will and the purification of the soul, not as the work of a power opposed to God.

This conception has a profound ethical consequence: since there is no devil onto whom guilt could be shifted, the human being bears full responsibility for his deeds. Good and evil are not two cosmic powers at war, but possibilities of the free human soul, which attains purification through repeated existences (the Êzîdî tradition knows conceptions of the transmigration of souls) (Asatrian & Arakelova 2014; Kreyenbroek 1995).

His obedience to Xwedê is described in the holy texts as perfect and eternal. The concept of a rebellion against God is theologically inconceivable within Êzîdî teaching, a point that is decisive for the refutation of the devil-worshipper slander.

2.3 The Triad: Tawûsî Melek, Sultan Êzî, and Şêx Adî

Êzîdî theology knows a triad of manifestations of the one God, which in the hymns often merge into one another and are not sharply separated (Kreyenbroek 1995; Allison 2001):

In the tradition, Şêx Adî is regarded as the incarnation of Tawûsî Melek (or of the divine mystery) on Earth (Kreyenbroek 1995; Açıkyıldız 2010). The historical Şêx Adî ibn Misafir (d. ca. 1162) was a Sufi ascetic originating from the Lebanese Bekaa who settled in the valley of Lalîş; in later Êzîdî tradition he became the bearer-figure of the divine Sur, so that the historical person and the divine manifestation overlap. The much-cited confession “God and Şêx Adî are perfect” (title of the edition by Kreyenbroek & Rashow 2005) expresses this interlocking: it is not a deification of a human being, but the recognition of the divine mystery at work in him. This interlocking underscores that it is not a matter of three gods, but of three modes of appearance of the one Xwedê. Sultan Êzî and Şêx Adî are treated more extensively further below.

3. Cosmogony: Pearl, Seven Angels, and the Creation of the World

According to the transmitted Qewl (sacred hymns), Xwedê first created from his pure light a white pearl (dur, durr) in spiritual form. In it the world rested hidden before it burst apart; from it emerged the primal colors (red, yellow, white) and a “cosmic ocean” from which all existence flowed (Kreyenbroek 1995; Omarkhali 2017). The Encyclopaedia Iranica summarizes that the world created by God was “at first a pearl” before it was reshaped into its present form; “during this phase the Heptad were called into being” (Encyclopaedia Iranica, “Yazidis”).

Before the creation of the material earth, Xwedê called the Heft Sirr into being and entrusted them with the governance of the world. Tawûsî Melek, as their leader, received the charge to order creation, and carried it out in perfect devotion. In several versions it is described that Tawûsî Melek, after passing a test, formed the cosmos out of the “world-egg” or out of the burst pearl (Kreyenbroek 1995; Spät 2008/2010). The other six angels each administer a cosmic domain; according to Êzîdî understanding, cosmic harmony depends on complete alignment with the divine will.

A motif recurring frequently in the Qewls is the calming of the restless primeval earth: the still life-hostile, quaking earth becomes fruitful and habitable only when Tawûsî Melek descends upon it and spreads his shimmering wings over it. From this act, the descent of the light-filled angel upon the unfinished world, proceed fertility, colors (the “rainbow”), and the order of life (cf. the New Year festival Sersal, Section 7.3). This motif connects the cosmogony directly with the liturgical course of the year of the Êzîdî.

These creation narratives differ fundamentally from the Abrahamic ones and go back, according to the state of research, to Old Mesopotamian and Indo-Iranian substrates (Kreyenbroek 1995; Spät 2008/2010). In Late Antique Motifs in Yezidi Oral Tradition (2008/2010), Eszter Spät has shown how many of these images, the cosmic pearl, the world-egg, the primal ocean, have parallels in the late-antique religious world of northern Mesopotamia, without thereby a simple “borrowing” being claimed.

4. The Narrative of the Test: Loyalty to the ONE God

One of the theologically most important narratives concerns the refusal of prostration before Adam.

When Xwedê created the first humans, he commanded the seven angels to prostrate themselves before Adam. Tawûsî Melek refused this prostration. In the Êzîdî understanding, however, this command was a test: Xwedê wished to discern which angel was perfectly loyal to him, and only to him, and would prostrate himself before no one but the Creator. Tawûsî Melek was the only one who refused, because he would prostrate himself before no one but the highest God. The tradition places the answer in his mouth: “How could I prostrate myself before another being!” (Kreyenbroek 1995; Spät 2008/2010; Allison, Encyclopaedia Iranica). His refusal is therefore not disobedience, but the highest expression of loyalty and pure monotheism: he refuses to worship a creature, because worship is due to Xwedê alone.

4.1 The Exaltation instead of the Fall

Decisive is the outcome of the narrative. In a variant broadly attested in the literature, Tawûsî Melek is initially put to the test or (in the versions assimilated to Êzîdîsm from outside) even “cast into Hell”, yet his tears of repentance extinguish the fires, and he is reconciled with God and exalted (Kreyenbroek 1995; popular tradition, cf. Spät 2008/2010). From the tears of repentance, according to a widespread pictorial variant, arise seven jugs or a water that quenches the flames of Hell, from which it likewise follows that in the Êzîdî order of salvation there is no eternal damnation. Where the prostration episode even begins with a “fall,” it consistently ends in repentance, forgiveness, and exaltation to “Lord of this World,” not in permanent banishment.

This point is theologically central: an angel who falls and is exalted is the exact opposite of an angel who falls and remains forever damned. Tawûsî Melek does not fall in the proper sense at all: he passes a test; and even where narrative variants speak of punishment, everything culminates in reconciliation. Êzîdî teaching therefore knows no “fallen angel” and no realm of eternal evil.

4.2 The Decisive Difference from the Islamic Iblis Narrative

Superficially this narrative resembles the Quranic account of Iblis, who likewise refuses to prostrate himself before Adam. The theological evaluation, however, is diametrically opposed:

Whereas Muslims despise Iblis for his refusal and interpret his defiance as a fall from God’s grace, the Êzîdî venerate Tawûsî Melek precisely because of his loyalty to God. From the Êzîdî point of view, a prostration before the creature Adam would have violated monotheism; the refusal is therefore virtue, not sin (Kreyenbroek 1995; Allison, Encyclopaedia Iranica). The formal parallelism of the two narratives is precisely the source of the historical misunderstanding: because the action (“refusal before Adam”) sounds identical, Muslim observers falsely concluded that the figures were identical, and overlooked that motive, evaluation, and outcome are entirely opposed (see Section 5).

5. The External Slander “Devil Worshippers”: Origin and Refutation

The claim that the Êzîdî are “devil worshippers” is among the oldest and most consequential slanders against the community and served for centuries as the theological justification of persecution and genocide (Fermane). In the following, the accusation is named explicitly, in order to explain it and to dismantle it.

5.1 Why the Accusation Arose

Several factors worked together:

1. Similarity of name and the linguistic taboo. Tawûsî Melek is occasionally associated with or paraphrased by names such as Şeytan/Şeytanî; Şeytan is at the same time the name of the Devil in the Quran. At the same time, the Êzîdî avoid the word Şeytan entirely out of reverence (see Section 1). Outsiders paradoxically interpreted this dread as a confession instead of what it is: a purity taboo (Kreyenbroek 1995; Asatrian & Arakelova 2014).
2. The parallel prostration narrative. Since the late 16th century, Muslim scholars compared the refusal of prostration with the Iblis narrative and falsely concluded that the figures were identical. Because the action (refusal before Adam) is worded the same in both traditions, the opposite evaluation was overlooked (Kreyenbroek 1995; see Section 4.2).
3. Colonial and missionary ethnography. The most influential Western primary sources of the 19th century, Austen Henry Layard’s Nineveh and its Remains (1849) and Nineveh and Babylon (1853) as well as George Percy Badger’s The Nestorians and their Rituals (1852), spread the label in the West. Layard’s description of the bronze peacock effigy (Sancak) of Tawûsî Melek contributed decisively to the entrenchment of the epithet “devil-worshipping.” It is noteworthy that Layard himself, after his visit, described the calm, blameless demeanor and the orderliness of the Êzîdî villages and considered the accusations unfounded (Guest 1993; Allison 2001).
4. Spurious “holy books.” The texts Kitêba Cilwe (Kitāb al-Jilwah, “Book of Illumination/Revelation”) and Mishefa Reş (Maṣḥaf Reş, “Black Book”), which circulated in the 19th/early 20th century, are today largely regarded in scholarship as later compilations or forgeries that, while they may reflect genuine traditional material, were co-shaped by outsiders and reinforced the devil-worshipper topos (Kreyenbroek 1995; Guest 1993). It is telling that the actual, living tradition of the Êzîdî lies orally in the Qewls; the texts presented as “books” never played the role in the lived religion that Western observers ascribed to them.
5. ISIS propaganda (2014). In recent times the “Islamic State” used the label “devil worshippers” to ideologically justify the genocide of the Êzîdî in Şingal (Sinjar) in August 2014, mass murder, enslavement, and expulsion were justified with precisely this old slander topos. The genocide demonstrated to the world public that the centuries-old slander is not harmless, but immediately deadly.

5.2 The Scholarly Refutation

Religious-studies scholarship has unambiguously rejected the equation:

• No evidence exists that the Êzîdî venerated Tawûsî Melek as the same figure as Iblis or Satan. Tawûsî Melek is the leader of the angels, not a fallen and not a disgraced angel (Kreyenbroek 1995; Açıkyıldız 2010). The Encyclopaedia Iranica explicitly records that most Êzîdî find the equation with Satan deeply offensive.
• In the Êzîdî system the basic axiom of dualism is lacking, an independent evil that opposes God. Without a cosmic devil there can be no “devil worship” (Asatrian & Arakelova 2014). In Êzîdî thought, evil is not a being, but a possibility of the human heart.
• The apparent parallels arise through the transfer of foreign, Abrahamic-dualistic patterns of thought onto a non-dualistic religion. Narratives that actually link Tawûsî Melek with evil are foreign to the Êzîdî tradition and were presumably introduced from outside (by Muslim or Christian transmitters) (Kreyenbroek 1995; Açıkyıldız 2010).
• The outcome of the prostration narrative refutes the equation in itself: Tawûsî Melek is not cursed but exalted; even punishment variants end in repentance and reconciliation (see Section 4.1). A figure without eternal damnation is the structural opposite of the Abrahamic Satan.

Conclusion: The accusation of “devil worship” is a foreign label without foundation in the Êzîdî sources. Tawûsî Melek’s own identity is that of a faithful, light-filled angel and vicegerent of Xwedê, never that of a devil. A more detailed treatment of the spurious writings and the history of the slander is found in the article on the Êzîdî forgeries (see internal references).

6. Symbolism of the Peacock and Iconography

6.1 The Peacock as a Symbol of Light

The peacock (tawûs) stands for divine light, purity, beauty, renewal, and the cyclical character of time. The radiant feathers are interpreted as a symbol of the rays of the sun, which each morning bestow their life-giving light; the variety of colors in the plumage symbolizes the “countless colors of nature” and the rainbow that Tawûsî Melek spans over the earth at his descent (Açıkyıldız 2010; Kreyenbroek 1995). The connection with the bird is not to be understood as animal worship or anthropomorphism, but as an image for the watchful, light-filled presence of the highest angel in the world. The peacock, which fans its wheel and thereby reveals an abundance of shimmering “eyes” and colors, is a particularly apt symbol for an angel who unfolds the one divine essence into the diversity of creation.

The peacock is holy to the Êzîdî: it is explicitly forbidden to hunt, eat, curse, or mistreat it (Açıkyıldız 2010).

6.2 The Sancak / Senjaq (Peacock Bronzes)

The most important cult objects are the Sancak (also Sinjaq, Senjaq), cast peacock figures of bronze (or brass/iron) on a candlestick stand, which represent Tawûsî Melek. According to tradition there were originally seven Sancaks, corresponding to the seven Êzîdî districts (likewise called sancak). The most important figure bears the name Anzal (“the Ancient One”) and is shown to the faithful at the great Cem in Lalîş (Spät 2017; Kreyenbroek & Rashow 2005). Eszter Spät counts the “Tawus of Anzal” among the few preserved or recovered Sancaks, which on its tours visits the Êzîdî places in Şêxan, Tel Kêf, Duhok, Başiqe, and Behzanî (Spät 2017).

In the ritual of the Tawûsgêran (“the carrying-around of the peacock,” also “parade of the Sancak”), the Qewal, the professional hymn singers (“masters of the word”), together with other religious dignitaries carried the Sancaks from village to village through the Êzîdî regions, sang the hymns of praise to the Peacock Angel, collected donations, distributed consecrated water and Berat (holy earth/stone pellets from Lalîş), and thus bound the dispersed community to the holy center of Lalîş. Eszter Spät has studied this procession and the role of the Sancaks as the “materialized memory” of the community in detail: the wandering Sancak makes the abstract teaching of the Peacock Angel tangibly experienceable and establishes, beyond the geographical dispersion, a concrete, annually renewed communal bond (Spät 2017). Political and confessional conflicts have repeatedly interrupted the Tawûsgêran in modern times; more recent revivals of the tradition are regarded by the community as a sign of cultural self-assertion.

6.3 Colors

In Êzîdî symbolism, the primal colors from the creation narrative (red, yellow, white) are especially significant. The color blue is considered taboo in some traditions. The shimmering, multicolored plumage of the peacock itself stands for the abundance of creation; the colorful eggs blessed at the New Year (red, blue, green, yellow) symbolize the rainbow that Tawûsî Melek created at his descent in Lalîş (Açıkyıldız 2010). (Exact color taboos vary regionally and are represented differently in the literature, marked here as regionally variable.)

7. Role in the Qewls, Prayer, and Festivals

7.1 Qewls (Sacred Hymns) and Liturgy

The Êzîdî religion is primarily transmitted orally. Its core are the Qewl (from qewl, “word/speech”), cryptic sacred hymns, performed by specialized singers (Qewal). To understanding belong explanatory narratives (çîrok) as well as further textual genres (beyt, du’a/prayers, and others), whose systematics Khanna Omarkhali first comprehensively opened up in her study on the transmission, categorization, and canonization of the oral texts (Omarkhali 2017). In the Qewls, Tawûsî Melek appears throughout as the leader of the Heft Sirr, as “Lord of this World,” and as a manifestation of Xwedê; they preserve pre-Islamic Kurdish and Old Iranian theological substrates (Kreyenbroek 1995; Kreyenbroek & Rashow 2005; Omarkhali 2017).

Central texts with direct reference to Tawûsî Melek are in particular the “Qewlê Tawûsî Melek” (the hymn to the Peacock Angel) as well as cosmogonic hymns such as the “Qewlê Zebûnî Meqaran” and hymns about the creation of the world from the pearl, in which the emanation, the Seven Angels, and the order of the cosmos are sung (cf. the editions in Kreyenbroek 1995 and Kreyenbroek & Rashow 2005). Philip Kreyenbroek presented in 1995 the first major English-language study together with a translation of central hymns; Kreyenbroek & Rashow (2005) considerably expanded the edited corpus and provided texts from within the religious tradition. Liturgically, the Tawûsî Melek hymns are sung above all at the great assemblies (Cem), at the Tawûsgêran, and throughout the annual cycle; they are thus not merely instructional texts but the active enactment of veneration.

7.2 Direction of Prayer

In personal prayer the Êzîdî turn toward the sun (at sunrise toward the east, at midday and in the evening in the respective direction of the sun). This orientation was falsely interpreted by outsiders as “sun worship”; in fact the sun is the symbol of the divine light whose light-filled expression is Tawûsî Melek, “for God as well as the sun are regarded by their nature as fiery” (cf. the light theology of the Sersal festival). Prayers are predominantly private; the one praying connects himself, in the light of the sun, with the divine Sur at work in Tawûsî Melek (Kreyenbroek 1995; Açıkyıldız 2010). Details of daily prayer practice are treated in the article on prayer practice (see internal references).

7.3 Festivals Related to Tawûsî Melek

• Sersal (Êzîdî New Year, “Red Wednesday” / Çarşema Sor): celebrated on the first Wednesday after April 14 (in the month of Nîsan). Celebrated is the descent of Tawûsî Melek upon the earth as light: according to Êzîdî belief, the Peacock Angel descends as God’s vicegerent upon the earth on this day, spreads his radiant wings, calms the still restless earth, and blesses it with peace and fertility. On the eve (Tuesday evening), candles and lamps fill the valley of Lalîş; in Lalîş a great fire is kindled to summon Tawûsî Melek as the returning sun. Brightly colored eggs (red, blue, green, yellow) are blessed and distributed, they symbolize the rainbow that arose at the descent (Kreyenbroek 1995; Omarkhali 2017; cf. the Sere-Sal tradition). Important: Sersal is not identical with Newroz (March 21); both are different festivals with a different date and a different meaning.
• Cejna Cemaiyê (“Feast of the Assembly”): the great autumn pilgrimage to Lalîş (approximately October 6–13) to the grave of Şêx Adî, the greatest festival of the year, at which the Sancak Anzal is also shown and the central Qewls to Tawûsî Melek resound (Kreyenbroek 1995; Spät 2017).

8. Religious-Studies Connections and Discussed Parallels

The origin of the Tawûsî Melek figure and the Heft Sirr doctrine is the subject of intensive but in part contested research. The following parallels are discussed in the serious literature, they are to be understood as possible references or hypotheses, not as established facts:

• Old Iranian / Zoroastrian (hypothesis): The emanation structure and the seven angels are connected with Old Iranian conceptions (such as the seven Amesha Spenta, the “Holy Immortals” of Zoroastrianism); the designation Êzdan / Yazata (“being worthy of veneration”) also points in this direction (Kreyenbroek 1995; Asatrian & Arakelova 2014). The older equation of Tawûsî Melek with the Zoroastrian Ahriman is rejected by scholarship, it rests on the same dualistic fallacy as the devil-worshipper thesis (Kreyenbroek 1995).
• Mesopotamian (hypothesis): The creation motifs (pearl, cosmic ocean, world-egg) are connected with Old Mesopotamian and late-antique substrates of northern Mesopotamia (Spät 2008/2010).
• Gnostic / Neoplatonic (hypothesis): The step-by-step emanation of the world from the transcendent One resembles Gnostic-Neoplatonic cosmologies; Rodziewicz points in particular to the late-antique angelology of Harran (Rodziewicz 2014/2018; Asatrian & Arakelova 2014, series title Gnostica).
• Mithraic / solar (speculative): The solar dimension (direction of prayer, light symbolism) led individual scholars to references to Iranian sun cults or the Mithras cult; these connections are expressly regarded as speculative (Asatrian & Arakelova 2014).

At the same time, more recent research (among others Allison, Spät, Omarkhali, Rodziewicz) emphasizes that Êzîdîsm is an independent religion with its own inner logic and should not be explained as a mere “syncretism mosaic” or as an offshoot of another religion. Earlier attempts to derive Êzîdîsm prematurely from foreign systems were criticized as methodologically questionable (Allison 2001; Spät 2008/2010). The parallels mentioned illuminate the historical context but do not replace the independent significance that Tawûsî Melek possesses in lived Êzîdî belief. Further references to neighboring religions are developed in the article neighboring religions (see internal references).

9. Correct Terms (Conventions)

Related Topics (Internal References)

• religion: overview of the Êzîdî religion
• schoepfung: doctrine of creation and cosmogony (pearl, world-egg)
• mythologie: the mythical narrative world of the Êzîdî
• qewl-tradition: the oral hymn tradition
• qewl-texte: edited and translated Qewl texts
• sanjak: the peacock cult figures in detail
• faelschungen: spurious writings and the history of the slander
• nachbarreligionen: references to Zoroastrianism, Gnosis, Islam, and others
• gebet-praxis: direction of prayer and daily practice
• heilige-tiere: the peacock and other holy animals

Sources

• Birgül Açıkyıldız: The Yezidis, The History of a Community, Culture and Religion. London: I. B. Tauris, 2010.
• Christine Allison: The Yezidi Oral Tradition in Iraqi Kurdistan. Richmond: Curzon, 2001.
• Christine Allison: “Yazidis,” in: Encyclopædia Iranica (online)., https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/yazidis-i-general-1/
• Garnik S. Asatrian & Victoria Arakelova: The Religion of the Peacock Angel, The Yezidis and Their Spirit World (series Gnostica). Durham: Acumen/Routledge, 2014., https://www.routledge.com/The-Religion-of-the-Peacock-Angel-The-Yezidis-and-Their-Spirit-World/Asatrian-Arakelova/p/book/9781032179759
• John S. Guest: Survival Among the Kurds, A History of the Yezidis. London: Kegan Paul International, 1993.
• Philip G. Kreyenbroek: Yezidism, Its Background, Observances and Textual Tradition. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1995., https://www.abebooks.com/9780773490048/Yezidism-Background-Observances-Textual-Tradition-0773490043/plp
• Philip G. Kreyenbroek & Khalil Jindy Rashow: God and Sheikh Adi are Perfect, Sacred Poems and Religious Narratives from the Yezidi Tradition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005.
• Khanna Omarkhali: The Yezidi Religious Textual Tradition, Transmission, Categorisation and Canonisation of the Yezidi Oral Religious Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2017., https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/title_1833.ahtml
• Artur Rodziewicz: “Heft Sur, The Seven Angels of the Yezidi Tradition and Harran” (essay, 2014/2018)., https://www.academia.edu/80671048/HEFT_SUR_THE_SEVEN_ANGELS_OF_THE_YEZIDI_TRADITION_AND_HARRAN
• Eszter Spät: Late Antique Motifs in Yezidi Oral Tradition (2008/2010); ead.: “Materializing Memory, The Role of the Yezidi Peacock Sanjak” (2017)., https://www.academia.edu/33792116/MATERIALIZING_MEMORY_-_The_Role_of_Yezidi_Peacock_Sanjak

Historical Primary Sources (Context of the Slander)

• Austen Henry Layard: Nineveh and its Remains (1849); Nineveh and Babylon (1853).
• George Percy Badger: The Nestorians and their Rituals (1852).

Note: Statements marked as “hypothesis,” “speculative,” “discussed,” or “contested” (Section 8, regional color taboos in 6.3, punishment/Hell variants of the prostration narrative in 4.1) reflect open research questions or narrative variants and are not to be read as established facts.

This article is part of the multilingual Êzdîxan Wiki and is available in 13 further languages.

6.4 The Tawûsgêran: Procession of the Sacred Sancak Through the Villages

While Section 6.2 introduces the Sancaks as cult objects, the Tawûsgêran (Kurmancî tawûs gêran, “the leading around of the peacock”; also “parade of the Sancak” or parading of the peacock) describes the associated ritual event: the solemn procession in which one of the bronze peacock figures was carried through the Yazidi settlements. The Tawûsgêran was regarded as one of the most important means of the annual renewal of faith and of binding the geographically dispersed community to the center of Lalîş (Spät 2017; Kreyenbroek 1995).

Sequence and Organization

The procession was conducted by the Qewal (also Kewal/Kawwal), the professional hymn singers and “masters of the word,” who do not belong to the priestly caste of the Şêx or Pîr but rather form their own functional group responsible for reciting the oral tradition. According to tradition, the Qewal set out from the spiritual center Lalîş and from the administrative heartland Şêxan (Sheikhan), often with an escort for protection, into the other Yazidi-settled regions. Several sources describe the rhythm as recurring regularly, in part biannually, in part as an annual visit to each village (Spät 2017; Yazidi social organization, Wikipedia; Kurdistan24 2024).

Each individual visit followed a fixed pattern:

• The Qewal carried the Sancak into the locality and sang the hymns of praise to Tawûsî Melek (in particular the Qewlê Tawûsî Melek), accompanied by the frame drum (def) and the flute (şibab).
• The faithful gathered, kissed the Sancak, spoke wishes and prayers, and presented voluntary donations (alms), which were intended for the upkeep of the sanctuary of Lalîş and of the religious dignitaries.
• Consecrated water (av from the holy spring Kaniya Spî, “White Spring”) was distributed, as well as Berat – small consecrated pellets made from the sacred earth of Lalîş.
• News was exchanged, religious instruction was given, and the community’s social affairs were discussed; in many places a shared meal and the religious round dance (govend) followed (Kurdistan24 2024; Spät 2017).

In this way the Tawûsgêran combined liturgical, economic, and community-building functions in a single ritual: it secured the financing of the center, reaffirmed the spiritual authority of Lalîş and of the Mîr (the secular prince of the Yazidis), and made the abstract doctrine of the Peacock Angel tangibly experienceable for the village population.

Significance: “Materialized Memory”

In her study Materializing Memory – The Role of the Yezidi Peacock Sanjak (2017), Eszter Spät interpreted the Tawûsgêran as a central medium of collective memory. In a predominantly non-literate, orally transmitted religion, the wandering, physically tangible Sancak in a sense replaces the missing sacred book: it makes the doctrine of the highest angel concrete, embodied, and newly experienceable each year across the spatial dispersion, thereby creating a communal bond that rests not on text but on repeated ritual performance (Spät 2017). The Tawûsgêran is thus less a mere “collection tour” than a periodic re-actualization of the entire religious world within the individual village.

The Seven Sancaks and Their Districts

According to tradition, seven Sancaks existed, corresponding to the seven Yazidi districts (likewise called sancak); each district was assigned one of these peacock figures, which was led there in procession (Spät 2017; Açıkyıldız 2010). Of the originally seven figures, only some survive: the most significant Sancak still in existence bears the name Anzal (“the most ancient one”); according to Spät it tours through the Yazidi towns of Şêxan, Tel Kêf, Duhok, Başiqe, and Behzanî (Spät 2017). In the 21st century, several peacock figures were again in circulation, covering different regions – one for the Iraqi heartland, one for Şingal (Sinjar) and the area around Zakho, and another for the Yazidi communities in Syria (Kurdistan24 2024).

Historical Bans and Interruptions

The Tawûsgêran was interrupted several times by political and confessional conflicts. Already under Ottoman rule the tradition suffered from the repeated anti-Yazidi persecutions; according to tradition, in the course of a persecution campaign in 1892 – associated with the Ottoman general Ömer Wehbi Pasha and the coercion to convert – several of the seven Sancaks were lost, several of which remain missing to this day (Kurdistan24 2024; cf. Guest 1993). These losses explain why the number of figures actually still in use lies far below the traditional seven.

In the 20th century, the procession came to a standstill for extended periods under the Iraqi state. The Baathist Arabization policy from the late 1960s onward – the forced resettlement of hundreds of thousands of Yazidis, the destruction of around 200 villages in the Şingal region, and the concentration of the population in collective settlements (mujamma’at) – severed the historically grown settlement structures and the routes along which the Sancak had been carried from village to village (cf. Persecution of Yazidis, Wikipedia). More recently, community members report that the Tawûs “did not come for several years” before the procession (documented in sources as the Tawus Tour) was resumed; the return of the Sancak to the villages was experienced as an occasion of great joy and as a sign of cultural self-assertion (Kurdistan24 2024). The genocide committed by the “Islamic State” in 2014 in Şingal and the subsequent displacement of large parts of the community also directly affected the preconditions for the procession.

Note on the sources: The exact periodicity (annual vs. biannual), the precise number of Sancaks still in use at any given time, and the dating of individual interruptions are reported partly differently in the literature and historically depended on the prevailing security situation. The routes named here and the role of the Sancak Anzal follow Spät (2017); the information on the resumption in the 21st century relies on journalistic reporting (Kurdistan24 2024).