The Dār al-Qurʾān endowed by the noble Sharīf al-Taʿadānī—situated beside Ḥammām al-Kās, north of the Badrāʾiyya Madrasa—was opened. A paid chair for the teaching of ḥadīth was instituted there, and its founder attended the daily sitting presided over by Chief Judge Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī. End of entry; Allah knows best.
A Council Convened Concerning Chief Judge Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī (1)
On Monday, the twentieth of Rabīʿ al-Awwal, a large council gathered in the Dār al-Saʿāda to examine the accusations leveled against the Shāfiʿī Chief Judge Tāj al-Dīn, son of Chief Judge Taqī al-Subkī. I was among those summoned and took my place with the others present. The three remaining chief judges attended, together with a throng from all four madhhabs and many others, in the presence of the deputy of Syria, Sayf al-Dīn Minklī Bughā. He had previously travelled to Egypt, to the august court, and secured a rescript directing the deputy of the sultanate to assemble this council so that the people might be questioned about him.
Two opposing memoranda had already been drafted: one in his favour and the other against him. The memorandum against him bore the signatures of the Mālikī and Ḥanbalī judges and a number of others, and it contained grave and repugnant allegations that the ear shrinks from hearing. The supporting memorandum was endorsed by scholars of the various schools and included my own signature, stating that I had seen nothing in him but good.
When the council convened, the deputy of the sultanate ordered that the two parties be seated apart, so each group took a separate place and faced the other. Representing him were his deputies, Judge Shams al-Dīn al-Ghazī, Badr al-Dīn ibn Wahbah, and others. The Ḥanbalī Chief Judge, Jamāl al-Dīn, declared explicitly that what he had written had been proven to his satisfaction, and some of those present supported him with unwavering resolve. Judge al-Ghazī promptly retorted to the Ḥanbalī: “Your enmity toward Chief Judge Tāj al-Dīn is already established.” Words multiplied, voices were raised, and debate grew heated. The Mālikī Chief Judge, Jamāl al-Dīn, also spoke in the same vein as the Ḥanbalī and was likewise answered. The meeting dragged on and ended without resolution.
As I reached the door, the deputy of the sultanate ordered me back. I found the remaining members of both parties and the three judges still seated. The deputy signalled that a reconciliation should be effected between them and Chief Judge Tāj al-Dīn—that the two judges should retract their statements. Shaykh Sharaf al-Dīn, son of Qāḍī al-Jabal, indicated his approval, and I likewise supported it. The Mālikī judge relented, but the Ḥanbalī refused. We therefore rose and the matter remained as it had been.
At the deputy’s request we met again on Friday after ʿAṣr. They agreed on how the written replies should be drafted, the deputy reviewing them; this was done and a courier departed with them for Egypt. We met a third time—on Friday after the prayer, the nineteenth of Rabīʿ al-Ākhir, in the Dār al-Saʿāda. The three judges were present along with others. The deputy of the sultanate strove earnestly to reconcile the judges with the Shāfiʿī Chief Judge, who was then in Egypt; disagreement arose and lengthy discussion ensued. In the end, some of them inclined toward reconciliation, as we shall relate in the following month.