Restoring Yazidi Shrines After ISIS Destruction: Efforts, Challenges, and Progress

This encyclopedia entry surveys the ongoing restoration of Yazidi shrines that were destroyed during the Islamic State’s 2014 genocidal campaign. It draws on recent reporting, NGO documentation, and scholarly analysis to outline the actors, methods, and outcomes of rebuilding efforts.

Yazidi shrine restoration (Kurmanji: temenê Êzidiyan) refers to the systematic repair, reconstruction, and memorialization of Yazidi religious structures that were demolished by ISIS between 2014 and 2017.

Pronunciation & orthography

Kurmanji spelling: temenê Êzidiyan. Arabic‑script: تمينة العزديان. Cyrillic (Kurdish‑Soviet): тэмэнэ Эзидиан. IPA: /tɛˈmɛne ˈeːzidiˈjan/. Common English misspellings include “Yazidi” vs. “Ezidi” and “temple” vs. “shrine”.

Main exposition

Background: the 2014 cultural devastation

In August 2014 ISIS seized large swaths of the Nineveh province, systematically demolishing Yazidi places of worship as part of a “cultural cleanse.” At least 68 shrines were recorded as destroyed across Iraq’s Yazidi heartland (Nadia’s Initiative, 2022)¹. In the Sinjar region alone, nine shrines vanished (Nadia’s Initiative, 2022)², while broader estimates cite 28 religious sites razed in Sinjar itself (Nadia’s Initiative, 2020)². The loss struck at the core of Yazidi identity, which is transmitted orally and through sacred architecture.

Key actors in the rebuilding landscape

Reconstruction has been driven primarily by three sectors:

• Local communities: Displaced families and clergy have organized volunteer labor to clear rubble and lay foundations, often financing materials through remittances.
• Non‑governmental organizations: Nadia’s Initiative, founded by Nobel laureate Nadia Murad, has become the most visible NGO, partnering with the ALIPH Foundation and local NGOs such as Sanabel to rehabilitate sites like the Malack Sheikh Hassan Temple in Gabara village (2020)³.
• International donors: Foundations, diaspora philanthropies, and UN agencies provide grants for structural engineering, heritage documentation, and training of masons.

Reconstruction methods and standards

Projects follow a three‑phase model:

1. Assessment & documentation: Teams record pre‑destruction layouts using satellite imagery, oral testimonies, and surviving photographs.
2. Materials & techniques: Where possible, original stone and timber are reclaimed; otherwise, compatible local limestone and lime‑based mortars are used to respect traditional aesthetics.
3. Memorialization: New structures incorporate plaques or murals honoring victims, aligning with the community’s need for collective memory (Nadia’s Initiative, 2022)².

Case studies

Bashiqa shrine (Iraq) – In August 2017 a team of local masons, funded by private donations, rebuilt a shrine dedicated to Sheikh Hassan in the town of Bashiqa, near Mosul. The project, highlighted by Reuters, illustrates how grassroots fundraising can jump‑start reconstruction even in the absence of formal state support (Reuters, 2017)⁴.

Malack Sheikh Hassan Temple (Sinjar) – This temple, one of the nine shrines lost in Sinjar, is being rehabilitated through a partnership between Nadia’s Initiative, the ALIPH Foundation, and Sanabel NGO. The work began in October 2020 and emphasizes community consultation, using traditional architectural motifs while adding a modern visitor center for education (Nadia’s Initiative, 2020)³.

Funding gaps and governmental role

Despite the visible progress, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has contributed limited funds. The head of the Ezidi Affairs Directorate, Ja’far Samo, acknowledged that reconstruction largely relies on NGOs and private donations three years after liberation (KirkukNow, 2020)⁵. This funding shortfall hampers large‑scale projects such as the restoration of the historic Sheikh Ali Khalil shrine, which remains in ruins.

Impact on community resilience

Restored shrines serve not only religious purposes but also act as hubs for social cohesion, education, and economic activity. Pilgrimage to rebuilt sites has resumed, generating modest tourism revenue that funds further heritage work. Moreover, the reconstruction process itself has empowered women’s groups who manage fundraising and logistics, reinforcing gender‑balanced community leadership.

In the oral tradition

Yazidi qewls (sacred hymns) frequently reference the sanctity of the earth‑bound shrines. One widely recited qewl, “Şêx Hesenê Dêra,” praises the perseverance of the faithful who “raise stone after stone, even when the wind of destruction blows.” This verse is invoked during dedication ceremonies to remind participants that rebuilding is a continuation of ancient devotional practice (A. Kreyenbroek, 2005).

Scholarly disagreement

Kreyenbroek argues that restoration should prioritize exact replication of pre‑destruction forms to preserve ritual continuity. In contrast, Açıkyıldız contends that integrating contemporary design elements reflects the living nature of Yazidi faith and can attract younger adherents.

Common misconceptions

Regional variation

Restoration practices differ across Yazidi territories. In Sinjar, community‑led projects dominate, often coordinated through local tribal councils. In Sheikhan (near Mosul), the focus is on rapid, functional repair to resume worship. Syrian Yazidi enclaves, lacking formal heritage bodies, rely on diaspora funding for modest shrine refurbishments. Turkish Yazidi sites, though few, have seen private restoration financed by Turkish NGOs. In the diaspora (Germany, Sweden, USA), community centers replicate shrine architecture for cultural events, highlighting a transnational dimension of heritage preservation.

Timeline

Data table