The spur for these convocations was a letter that arrived from the sultan on the matter. Those who had urged him to send it were the Mālikī judge Ibn Makhlūf (1), Shaykh Naṣr al-Manbijī (2) — spiritual guide to the jāshankīr (3) — together with other adversaries of the Shaykh. For Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyya had been speaking against al-Manbijī, charging him with espousing the creed of Ibn ʿArabī, and a number of jurists envied Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn for his standing with the rulers, his singular commitment to enjoining right and forbidding wrong, the people’s obedience and affection for him, the multitude of his followers, his steadfastness upon truth, and the breadth of his knowledge and practice (4).

Thereafter Damascus fell into great turmoil and confusion because of the absence of the deputy of the sultanate (5). The judge summoned several of the Shaykh’s disciples, administering corporal chastisement to some. It then happened that the ḥadith master Shaykh Jamāl al-Dīn al-Mizzī (6) read aloud a chapter refuting the Jahmiyya (7) from al-Bukhārī’s Kitāb Afʿāl al-ʿIbād beneath the Dome of the Eagle (8) after the scheduled recitation of al-Bukhārī that had been arranged on account of the prayer for rain. Some of the jurists present became incensed, lodged a complaint with the Shāfiʿī judge Ibn Ṣaṣrā — an enemy of the Shaykh — and al-Mizzī was imprisoned. When news of this reached Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn he was distressed; he went to the prison, released al-Mizzī with his own hand, and proceeded to the Citadel where he found the judge. They exchanged heated words over Shaykh Jamāl al-Dīn al-Mizzī, and Ibn Ṣaṣrā swore that he would have him returned to prison or else resign his office. To placate the judge, the deputy ordered al-Mizzī’s return; he kept him confined in the Qūsiyya for a few days and then set him free.

When the deputy of the sultanate finally arrived, Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn informed him of what had befallen him and his companions during the deputy’s absence. The deputy was perturbed and proclaimed throughout the city that no one was henceforth to speak on matters of creed; whoever reverted to such discourse would forfeit his wealth and his life, and his house and shop would be plundered (9). The turmoil then subsided.

I have seen a passage by Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn describing what transpired in those three sessions of debate.

The third session was held in the Citadel on the seventh of Shaʿbān, and all present agreed to accept the aforementioned creed. On that same day Ibn Ṣaṣrā resigned from the judiciary because of something he heard from certain attendees regarding—