the Kaʿbah; so they all turned toward it—although their faces had been toward Syria—pivoting round until they now faced the Kaʿbah. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim both relate the report.

This is explicit evidence that the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, accepted a solitary report as sufficient to abrogate what they had previously held with certainty: the obligation to face Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem). They abandoned that ruling and faced the Kaʿbah solely on the strength of that single report. Had it not been binding proof for them, they would never have set aside what they had been certain of regarding the first qiblah.

Ibn al-Qayyim said: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not censure them for doing so; rather, he praised them for it.”

Fourth proof: Saʿīd ibn Jubayr said, “I asked Ibn ʿAbbās, ‘Nāwaf al-Bakālī claims that the Moses who kept company with al-Khiḍr is not Moses, the Prophet of the Children of Israel.’ Ibn ʿAbbās replied, ‘The enemy of Allah has lied! Ubayy ibn Kaʿb informed me that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ once addressed us…’ He then recounted the story of Moses and al-Khiḍr in a manner that shows clearly that it was indeed Moses (peace be upon him) of the Children of Israel who accompanied al-Khiḍr.” Al-Bukhārī and Muslim record the narration at length, while al-Shāfiʿī cites it in this abridged form and remarks (442/1219):

“Al-Shāfiʿī establishes matters of creed on the basis of a solitary report.”

Thus Ibn ʿAbbās, despite his deep learning and piety, upheld Ubayy ibn Kaʿb’s report from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to the extent that he branded a fellow Muslim a liar for contradicting it, because Ubayy’s narration from the Prophet ﷺ proves that the Moses in question—the companion of al-Khiḍr—was Moses, the Prophet of the Children of Israel.