Such is, in the main, the religion of the Persian Apostle and is logically the religion of Yezid bn Unaisa which announces the coming of such a messenger. We may conclude, therefore, that the founder of the Yezidi sect believed in God and in the Day of Resurrection; that he, perhaps, honored the angels and the stars, and that he was neither polytheistic nor a true believer in the Prophet of Islam. This last point is referred to also explicitly in the statement quoted, that Yezid associated himself with those of the people of the Book who recognized Mohammed as a prophet though they did not become his followers. This is the negative aspect, so to speak, of bn Unaisa’s religious views. He is also said to have claimed that the followers of the ordinances[120] agreed with him. This statement tends to indicate that he might have accepted some phases of the Muslim faith. And the fact that he belonged to _Al-Ḫawarij_ implies that he was one of those who were “condemning and rejecting ‘Ali for his scandalous crime of parleying with Mu‘awiya, the first of the Omayyid line, and submitting his claims to arbitration.” Such are in brief the fundamental elements in the religious system of one who may be held responsible for the rise of the sect in question. There can be no doubt, it seems to me, that the Yezidis are the followers of Yezid bn Unaisa. The statement of our authority, Mohammed Aš-Šahrastani (see pp. 119-120), is so clear that it can bear no other interpretation. And what is far more important, it comes from the pen of one who is considered of the highest authority among the Arab scholars on questions relating to philosophical and religious sects. In his bibliographical work Ibn Ḫallikan speaks of his profound scholarship in the highest terms: “Aš-Šahrastani, a dogmatic theologian of the ‘Ašarite sect, was distinguished as an Imam and a doctor of the law. He displayed the highest abilities as a jurisconsult. The Kitab al-Milal wa n-Niḥal (treatise on religions and sects) is one of his works on scholastic theology. He remained without an equal in that branch of science.” Now, Mohammed Aš-Šahrastani (A. H. 467-549) A. D. 1074-1133 was a contemporary of ‘Adi (A. H. 465-555) A. D. 1072-1162, yet he makes no allusion to him when he refers to the rise of this most interesting sect; nor does he make mention of any other supposed founder except the one he records. For these reasons I accept the historical assertion of this distinguished author.