Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Yezidis

Expand Messages
  • icybrethovhecate
    Another religion from Iraq. The Yezidis believe that God created a great pearl at the begining of time and placed it on the back of a huge bird, after this he
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Another religion from Iraq. The Yezidis believe that God created a
      great pearl at the begining of time and placed it on the back of a huge
      bird, after this he created Lucifer(Melek Taus) and his hordes of
      angels. He(God) then retreated from the universe and left creation to
      Lucifer who broke open the pearl and made everything. Lucifer is
      regarded as fallen but capable of redemption and is depicted as a
      peacock because of his pride and association with the sun. As a sun-
      god, Lucifer represents good and evil, fire as light and fire as burn.
      Supposbly all humans have a piece of Lucifer in their own souls, and
      those who follow him will be rewarded in the world to come.
    • pmcvflag
      Icybrethovhecate Just because something is exotic and esoteric doesn t mean it is Gnostic . We need to be a bit critical of certain sources when talking about
      Message 2 of 9 , May 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Icybrethovhecate

        Just because something is exotic and esoteric doesn't mean it
        is "Gnostic". We need to be a bit critical of certain sources when
        talking about subjects like this. Besides, the equation of Malek Taus
        with "Lucifer" is not accurate. We REALLY have to be careful about
        glossing things in this way.

        The so called "Peacock Angel" or "King Peacock" is a motif in a
        religion that was only given "Biblical" contexts of the sort you
        mention as an attack.

        Neither the Yezidis, nor the Mandaeans (since you previously mentioned
        them), are technically Gnostic.

        PMCV

        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "icybrethovhecate"
        <icybrethovhecate@...> wrote:
        >
        > Another religion from Iraq. The Yezidis believe that God created a
        > great pearl at the begining of time and placed it on the back of a
        huge
        > bird, after this he created Lucifer(Melek Taus) and his hordes of
        > angels. He(God) then retreated from the universe and left creation
        to
        > Lucifer who broke open the pearl and made everything. Lucifer is
        > regarded as fallen but capable of redemption and is depicted as a
        > peacock because of his pride and association with the sun. As a sun-
        > god, Lucifer represents good and evil, fire as light and fire as
        burn.
        > Supposbly all humans have a piece of Lucifer in their own souls, and
        > those who follow him will be rewarded in the world to come.
        >
      • debbie wheeler
        pmcvflag wrote: Icybrethovhecate Just because something is exotic and esoteric doesn t mean it is Gnostic . We need to be a bit
        Message 3 of 9 , May 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
          Icybrethovhecate

          Just because something is exotic and esoteric doesn't mean it
          is "Gnostic". We need to be a bit critical of certain sources when
          talking about subjects like this. Besides, the equation of Malek Taus
          with "Lucifer" is not accurate. We REALLY have to be careful about
          glossing things in this way.

          The so called "Peacock Angel" or "King Peacock" is a motif in a
          religion that was only given "Biblical" contexts of the sort you
          mention as an attack.

          Neither the Yezidis, nor the Mandaeans (since you previously mentioned
          them), are technically Gnostic.

          PMCV

          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "icybrethovhecate"
          <icybrethovhecate@...> wrote:
          >
          > Another religion from Iraq.  The Yezidis believe that God created a
          > great pearl at the begining of time and placed it on the back of a
          huge
          > bird, after this he created Lucifer(Melek Taus) and his hordes of
          > angels.  He(God) then retreated from the universe and left creation
          to
          > Lucifer who broke open the pearl and made everything.  Lucifer is
          > regarded as fallen but capable of redemption and is depicted as a
          > peacock because of his pride and association with the sun.  As a sun-
          > god, Lucifer represents good and evil, fire as light and fire as
          burn. 
          > Supposbly all humans have a piece of Lucifer in their own souls, and
          > those who follow him will be rewarded in the world to come.
          >


          I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.
           
          Thanks.




          Mer248lina


          Win tickets to the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany with Yahoo! Messenger.

        • pmcvflag
          Hey Mer248lina ... line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the Yezidis are technically gnostic groups.
          Message 4 of 9 , May 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey Mer248lina

            >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
            line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
            Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<

            Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
            would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
            right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
            as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
            gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.

            I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
            these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of interest
            here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
            Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest here.
            Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
            conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
            much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
            Gnosticism.

            A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking Gnosticism"
            by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised important
            issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
            technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the category,
            such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
            actually fit.

            The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
            by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a friend.
            She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
            (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
            study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
            categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
            not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
            bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out to
            not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
            repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
            not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.

            I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the Mandaean
            youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
            closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.

            Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
            believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
            something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
            attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
            as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this subject
            generally don't.

            Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
            would they be?

            PMCV
          • icybrethovhecate
            Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don t know what your talking about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is as proud as a peacock and he s a
            Message 5 of 9 , May 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don't know what your talking
              about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is "as proud
              as a peacock" and he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
              feathers is a symbol of the sun). His secret name is Shaitan(Satan)
              which the Yezidis are forbidden to speak. His color is blue, as
              Lucifer's color. And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
              aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn). Read more on
              Yezidism before you make claims. And yes, the Yezidis are Gnostic,
              they believe that Lucifer(Melek Taus) is the Demiurge, and they value
              knowledge rather than faith as the means of salvation(remember, it is
              Lucifer who told Adam and Eve to eat from The Tree of Knowledge).
              Theyn also honor Jesus. And the Mandeans are included in my Gnostic
              Bible, so their Gnostic as well. Personally, I am a Luciferian and I
              like the Yezidis even if I don't agree with all their beliefs.
              http://n.webring.com/hub?ring=luciferiangnosis,
              http://home.earthlink.net/~xristos/GoldenDawn/yezidi01.htm,
              http://www.sacred-texts.com/asia/sby/,
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Church_of_the_Peacock_Angel/,
              http://www.churchofsatan.org/peacock.html


              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hey Mer248lina
              >
              > >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
              > line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
              > Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<
              >
              > Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
              > would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
              > right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
              > as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
              > gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.
              >
              > I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
              > these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of
              interest
              > here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
              > Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest
              here.
              > Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
              > conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
              > much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
              > Gnosticism.
              >
              > A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking
              Gnosticism"
              > by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised
              important
              > issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
              > technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the
              category,
              > such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
              > actually fit.
              >
              > The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
              > by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a
              friend.
              > She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
              > (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
              > study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
              > categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
              > not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
              > bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out
              to
              > not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
              > repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
              > not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.
              >
              > I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the
              Mandaean
              > youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
              > closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.
              >
              > Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
              > believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
              > something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
              > attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
              > as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this
              subject
              > generally don't.
              >
              > Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
              > would they be?
              >
              > PMCV
              >
            • Will
              Ah comon man, where have you been studying? JoS? the color blue? The Yezidi say Melek Taus (btw, Melek does not mean black, it means king) is the demiurge, but
              Message 6 of 9 , May 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Ah comon man, where have you been studying? JoS? the color blue? The
                Yezidi say Melek Taus (btw, Melek does not mean black, it means king)
                is the demiurge, but as for Lucifer...they only say that he is Azazel,
                or Shaitan. So yes, the surrounding evironment labels them devil
                worshippers, but Lucifer is a rather elusive term... not very easily
                used here. But Yezidi as Gnostic? That's pretty silly to me. If
                anything, neo-gnostic... but even then, it doesn't really fit. Even
                though they see Melek Taus as the Demiurge, that doesn't mean
                anything. Jews and Christians believe YHWH is the demiurge, but that
                doesn't make them Gnostic. It would help your case a little if this
                demiurge was keepin the man down, especially for something Sethian,
                but that isn't the case... and even then, it would totally wipe out
                your arguement.

                As for them holding faith over knowledge, that simply can't be true.
                Think about what faith is: Even though everyone around them is against
                them, they are still faithful to Melek Taus. All the religions have
                their knowledge, but it's different with their faith. For example,
                it's hard to go to war and fight, but people look up to someone who
                fights to protect their country(I mean, pre-Iraq deal), and it can
                keep you going. But what if as a man, you dress up as a woman and walk
                around town? Everyone automatically turns against you. How much
                strength would you have then? Everyone around the Yezidi antagonizes
                them. So as you can see, faith is an integral part of Yezidi culture.
                Even more so than their "knowledge".



                http://www.judstud.se/img/events/Melek%20Taus.jpg

                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "icybrethovhecate"
                <icybrethovhecate@...> wrote:
                >
                > Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don't know what your talking
                > about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is "as proud
                > as a peacock" and he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
                > feathers is a symbol of the sun). His secret name is Shaitan(Satan)
                > which the Yezidis are forbidden to speak. His color is blue, as
                > Lucifer's color. And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
                > aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn). Read more on
                > Yezidism before you make claims. And yes, the Yezidis are Gnostic,
                > they believe that Lucifer(Melek Taus) is the Demiurge, and they value
                > knowledge rather than faith as the means of salvation(remember, it is
                > Lucifer who told Adam and Eve to eat from The Tree of Knowledge).
                > Theyn also honor Jesus. And the Mandeans are included in my Gnostic
                > Bible, so their Gnostic as well. Personally, I am a Luciferian and I
                > like the Yezidis even if I don't agree with all their beliefs.
                > http://n.webring.com/hub?ring=luciferiangnosis,
                > http://home.earthlink.net/~xristos/GoldenDawn/yezidi01.htm,
                > http://www.sacred-texts.com/asia/sby/,
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Church_of_the_Peacock_Angel/,
                > http://www.churchofsatan.org/peacock.html
                >
                >
                > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Hey Mer248lina
                > >
                > > >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
                > > line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
                > > Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<
                > >
                > > Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
                > > would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
                > > right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
                > > as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
                > > gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.
                > >
                > > I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
                > > these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of
                > interest
                > > here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
                > > Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest
                > here.
                > > Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
                > > conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
                > > much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
                > > Gnosticism.
                > >
                > > A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking
                > Gnosticism"
                > > by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised
                > important
                > > issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
                > > technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the
                > category,
                > > such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
                > > actually fit.
                > >
                > > The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
                > > by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a
                > friend.
                > > She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
                > > (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
                > > study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
                > > categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
                > > not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
                > > bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out
                > to
                > > not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
                > > repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
                > > not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.
                > >
                > > I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the
                > Mandaean
                > > youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
                > > closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.
                > >
                > > Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
                > > believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
                > > something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
                > > attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
                > > as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this
                > subject
                > > generally don't.
                > >
                > > Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
                > > would they be?
                > >
                > > PMCV
                > >
                >
              • pmcvflag
                Hey Icybrethovhecate ... about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is as proud as a peacock and he s a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
                Message 7 of 9 , May 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hey Icybrethovhecate

                  >>Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don't know what your talking
                  about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is "as proud
                  as a peacock" and he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
                  feathers is a symbol of the sun). His secret name is Shaitan(Satan)
                  which the Yezidis are forbidden to speak. His color is blue, as
                  Lucifer's color. And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
                  aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn). Read more on
                  Yezidism before you make claims.<<<

                  It isn't that I haven't read anything on Yezidis, it is just that
                  you and I have been reading different sources. I have to side with
                  Will on this one... the sources you site in order to demonstrate
                  your point seem questionable to me. Melek Taus doesn't mean "Black
                  Peacock", and I am not aware of any critical historian that would
                  agree with the notion that the Yezidis have been around for 4000
                  years. Another site you list is nothing more than a copy of Isya's
                  hopelessly outdated book... again full of questionable information.

                  I am not trying to be adversarial here, but I think we should be a
                  bit more questioning of our sources... don't you? I think I would
                  rather take my info from more academic sources in this case rather
                  than sensationalist occult resources.

                  As with the Mandaeans, much of the early direct academic info on the
                  Yezidis comes from E. Drower. It is of note that she believes the
                  term "seiten" (or shaytan, etc.) enters the Yezidi lingo initially
                  as an attack, and the reason Yazidis are forbidden to state the name
                  is partly because it sounded superficially like a name they already
                  had and they did not want thier god cursed with the equation.

                  "Indeed, it is possibly the Yazidis themselves, by tabooing all
                  mention of the name Shaitan, or Satan, as a libel upon this angel,
                  who have fostered the idea that the Peacock Angel is identical with
                  the dark fallen angel whom men call the Tempter." (E.Drower "Peacock
                  Angel")

                  She reports posing the question to a qawwal, point blank, and being
                  told that the equation was a mistake.

                  If you look in Isya's "Black Book" (which we don't know to be real,
                  for sure... but you gave us a link to), you will actually see that
                  it directly states that the name Satan is avoided because
                  it "resembles" the name of thier god.

                  Now, of course it is up to you whether you believe any one resource
                  here more than another, but I think that there is enough evidence
                  contrary to the usual occult line to at least warrent some
                  scepticism. If you don't like what I say, at least allow for the
                  possibility that I may not be completely ignorant. Since you are now
                  talking in a community that values some academic perspective, try to
                  allow that academic perspective have a place in your side of the
                  conversation as well. I question your RESOURCES, not YOU.... please
                  have the same respect.

                  >>>And yes, the Yezidis are Gnostic, they believe that Lucifer(Melek
                  Taus) is the Demiurge, and they value knowledge rather than faith as
                  the means of salvation(remember, it is Lucifer who told Adam and Eve
                  to eat from The Tree of Knowledge). Theyn also honor Jesus. And the
                  Mandeans are included in my Gnostic Bible, so their Gnostic as
                  well. Personally, I am a Luciferian and I like the Yezidis even if
                  I don't agree with all their beliefs.<<<

                  The so called "Gnostic Bible" contains many texts that scholars
                  don't consider to be Gnostic. Even one of the book's editors, Dr
                  Meyer, would surely tell you in retrospect that some of the texts
                  are not technically "Gnostic". In fact, Dr Meyer states more
                  recently in his essay for the Gospel of Judas that the category
                  of "gnostic" is defined by a direct relation to Sethian beliefs. In
                  other words, one of the compilers of your "Gnostic Bible" has
                  perhaps become even more strict than ME in using this term.... and
                  obviously can not consider some of the texts in his own book to
                  be "Gnostic".

                  If you go around saying that just because it is in the compilation
                  called "The Gnostic Bible" it must be "Gnostic", it is almost like
                  the Christians who say "the Bible says it so it must be true". The
                  Gnostics had NO "Bible".... so don't take the "Gnostic Bible" too
                  seriously.

                  BTW, "Lucifer" enters our language as a mistranslation in the Latin
                  Vulgate concerning the king of Babylon in Psalms. I doubt whether
                  the average Yezidi has even heard the term. The Bible doesn't say
                  that "Lucifer" tempted Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of
                  knowledge (not that we care what the Bible says *lol*)

                  PMCV
                • debbie wheeler
                  pmcvflag wrote: Hey Mer248lina ... line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the Yezidis are technically
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                    Hey Mer248lina

                    >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
                    line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
                    Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<

                    Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
                    would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
                    right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
                    as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
                    gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.

                    I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
                    these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of interest
                    here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
                    Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest here.
                    Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
                    conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
                    much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
                    Gnosticism.

                    A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking Gnosticism"
                    by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised important
                    issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
                    technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the category,
                    such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
                    actually fit.

                    The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
                    by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a friend.
                    She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
                    (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
                    study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
                    categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
                    not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
                    bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out to
                    not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
                    repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
                    not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.

                    I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the Mandaean
                    youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
                    closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.

                    Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
                    believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
                    something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
                    attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
                    as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this subject
                    generally don't.

                    Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
                    would they be?

                    PMCV
                     
                    Thanks pm, now you've given me a load of work to do lol. Have to verify what you've said about Salvation, gnosis and mandeans.





                    Mer248lina


                    Switch an email account to Yahoo! Mail, you could win FIFA World Cup tickets.
                  • Will
                    ... http://www.judstud.se/img/events/Melek%20Taus.jpg ---take a look This depiction of Melek Taus shows his tail feather eyes extending out in a solar symbol
                    Message 9 of 9 , May 2, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, other guy <no_reply@...> wrote:

                      >> >>...he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
                      >> feathers is a symbol of the sun).

                      http://www.judstud.se/img/events/Melek%20Taus.jpg ---take a look

                      This depiction of Melek Taus shows his tail feather eyes extending out
                      in a solar symbol because of the number of eyes (twelve). The roots of
                      the eyes of the feathers are seven in number, and denote the planets
                      of the ancients, which are numbered from the supernal triad - the
                      three feathers springing from the birds head. dividing the image in
                      half, is the Moon, representing opposites, while He stands on the
                      Earth symbol as a foot stool. The Sumerian symbol to the left, the
                      star, represents a god. The rest of it says something like, "created
                      in light and darkness" or something of that nature.

                      >>His secret name is Shaitan(Satan) which the Yezidis are forbidden to
                      speak.

                      You're forgetting these are Iraqi Kurds. That word is probably not in
                      their original vocabulary from "4,000 years ago, when they started
                      this religion" as one of your sources says(*snicker*). It's probably a
                      label that an outside culture gave their deity. Probably somewhere
                      from a short distance west? Speaking of origins, Most scholars agree
                      that the Yezidi are an evolution of Zoroastrianism and Mithraism. Want
                      sources? Go find them, there's plenty of material out there. Try not
                      to use keywords like "Lord Lucifer" in the search though...just a tip.

                      >> And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
                      >> aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn).

                      How is that evil? Those are just attributes of the Sun (the whole
                      "fire as light and fire and burn").
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.