Another instance of the _Mufti’s_ power occurred in the reign of Suleiman, who, as a willing servant of the Sacred Law, freely recognized the greatness of the _Mufti’s_ position. The _Mufti_ Ebu su’ud was one of the most distinguished ornaments of the Legislator’s reign. He had passed through all the stages of advancement among the _Ulema_, and had been _Kaziasker_ eight years when he was constituted _Mufti_. He wrote a great commentary on the Koran, and it was he who collected the best-known _Kanun-nameh_ of Suleiman.[672] This man was closely connected with one of those sorrowful events which made the reign of Suleiman, great as it was in victory, splendor, and learning, equally great in tragic ruin of hope. Suleiman must have passed through many hours of torturing indecision before he determined upon the execution of his eldest son, Mustapha; and in so great a matter he needed to consult the guardian of the Sacred Law. The story of the part which the _Mufti_ played shall be told by Busbecq, who appears for the last time in the pages of this treatise:— “Solyman had brought with him [to Amasia, where he joined the army] his son’s death doom, which he had prepared before leaving home. With a view to satisfying religious scruples, he had previously consulted his mufti. This is the name given to the chief priest among the Turks, and answers to our Pope of Rome. In order to get an impartial answer from the mufti, he put the case before him as follows:—He told him that there was at Constantinople a merchant of good position, who, when about to leave home for some time, placed over his property and household a slave to whom he had shown the greatest favour, and entrusted his wife and children to his loyalty. No sooner was the master gone than this slave began to embezzle his master’s property, and plot against the lives of his wife and children; nay, more, had attempted to compass his master’s destruction. The question which he (Solyman) wished the mufti to answer was this: What sentence could be lawfully pronounced against this slave? The mufti answered that in his judgment he deserved to be tortured to death. Now, whether this was the mufti’s own opinion, or whether it was pronounced at the instigation of Roostem or Roxolana, there is no doubt that it greatly influenced Solyman, who was already minded to order the execution of his son; for he considered that the latter’s offence against himself was quite as great as that of the slave against his master, in the case he had put before the mufti.”[673]