The entertaining of such views has led some modern critics to think ‘Adi the good and Melek Ṭâ´ûs the evil principle. In the poem (30-32), he is represented as the good deity and the source of all good. Others identify him with Adde or Adi, a disciple of Manes or Mani. Still others regard his name as one of the names of the deity. In this case, his tomb is a myth and the prefix “Šeiḫ” is added to deceive the Mohammedans, and thus to prevent them from desecrating the sacred shrine, just as the Christians call Mar Mattie, Sheikh Mattie, and the convent of Mar Behnan, ḫuder Elias.[144] But the most ingenious theory is that advanced by the Rev. G. P. Badger. He queries whether the Yezidi ‘Adi be not cognate with the Hebrew Ad, the two first letters in the original of Adonai, the Lord, and its compounds, Adonijah, Adonibezek. The writer is aware, however, that “This derivative is open to objection on the ground that the Yezidis write the word with ‘ain and not with alif.” But he explains: “They write so only in Arabic, of which they know but very little, and not in their own language (Kurdish) in which they do not write it at all. Moreover, they may have assimilated the mode of expressing the title of their deity in bygone days to that of ‘Adi, one of the descendants of the Merawian Califs, with whom, from fear of being persecuted by the Mohammedans, they sometimes identified him.” Having thus expounded his own view, this English scholar proceeds to repudiate the suggestion that Šeiḫ ‘Adi “is the same Adi,” one of the disciples of Mani, since there is no proof, according to him, that Mani himself was deified by his followers. So far as the application of the method of comparative philology is concerned, Badger’s theory is more reasonable and tenable than that of Lidzbarski, who, by the same method, attempts to identify Melek Ṭâ´ûs with Tammuz. Nevertheless, the inference of the former is beyond any possible justification. For such a starting-point is misleading when it is not supported by historical proof. A failure to support it thus cannot be regarded as other than deficiency in treatment. Now, while one may be misguided by the Yezidi myth surrounding the personality of Šeiḫ ‘Adi, the critical mind can find much in it to aid him in his efforts to discover the true identity of the man. In verse fifty of his poem, for our critic draws his conclusions in the light of this poem, the Šeiḫ receives his authority from God who is his lord; in verse fifty-seven he is a man, ‘Adi of Damascus, son of Musafir; in verse eighty he declares that the high place which he had attained is attainable by all who, like him, shall find the truth. To justify my criticism, I need only ask the reader to recall the description by the Mohammedan biographers of the person in question.