These are the accounts which we have of Šeiḫ ‘Adi in his relation to the Yezidis, and they deserve our special attention. For not only are the writers scholars of the highest authority, but they are to a certain extent eye-witness authorities. The last two are from the city of Mosul, which is the only city in the Mohammedan world whose widely spreading scholarship has acquired for it the name “Dar-al-‘Ulum,” _i. e._, the home of sciences. Moreover, they come from a family whose members are known as ‘Olama, highly intellectual, broad-minded Mohammedan gentlemen. While at Mosul, I had the honor of calling often on Ḥasan Efendi al ‘Omari, and especially on Suleiman Efendi al ‘Omari. Ibn Ḫallikan as a trustworthy biographer needs no further introduction than the mere mentioning of his name. What adds to his reputation as a scholar is the fact that, being a resident of Arbila in the province of Mosul, he had at his command firsthand information. Another noteworthy fact is that all three of these scholars agree in their account of Šeiḫ ‘Adi, in their tracing of his genealogy, in describing him as the most perfect model of hermits, in praising him for his manner of life, which they regard as a life of holiness. They agree also in their definition of the common people’s attitude toward the Šeiḫ: that he was deified and that his tomb has been made the object of pilgrimage. And finally they are silent about his supposed founding of the sect in question. There is no intimation that he was a heretic, or that he established such a schism. To be sure, Ibn Ḫallikan makes mention of a religious order which was called after the Šeiḫ’s name, but he designates them as ‘Adawia and not as Yezidis. This might have been such an order as the Brotherhood of Assanusi, called after Mohammed ibn ‘Ali as-Sanusi, or as many other orders of dervishes and šeiḫs of mystical type, that have taken rise from time to time in the religious history of Islam. The other two speak of the appearance of the Yezidis, but they look at the incident as a calamity to the šeiḫ because they deified him and worshipped at his tomb. Their remarks tend to show that the Yezidi sect were known as such before the time of ‘Adi; that their appellation was based on the pretension that they were descendants of Yesid; that they were apostates from Islam; that they were some of those who were attached to ‘Adi by reason of his wide reputation as a saint, and were led by their ignorance to take him for a god; and that they were worshippers of the sun and the devil. It is inconceivable to us, if we apply the principles of modern criticism to what we know of the character of the Mohammedan historians, that they should write the life of one who is responsible for the rise of a sect, the foundation of whose religion is the devil, and not curse him and the devil with him a hundred million times.