Azami 10803

Tabarani reported it in Al-Kabir (12/19), and in Al-Awsat, Majma Bahrayn (4548), through several routes from Asim bin Ali, who said, Qays bin Rabi told us, from Habib bin Abu Thabit, from Saeed bin Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas, who said, and then he mentioned it. Its chain is hasan because of Qays bin Rabi, since there is disagreement about him, as will be explained, but he has also been corroborated. Haythami said in Majma (10/95), "Tabarani reported it in the three books through several chains of transmission, and in one of them is Qays bin Rabi, whom Shuba, Thawri, and others considered reliable, while Yahya Qattan and others considered him weak. The rest of its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih." He also said, "Bazzar reported something similar, and its chain is hasan."I say, it is as he said. Bazzar reported it (5028), and Hakim (1/502), both through routes from Abdul-Rahman bin Ghazwan, Qarad Abu Nuh, who said, Abdul-Rahman bin Abdullah Masudi told us, from Habib bin Abu Thabit, from Saeed bin Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas, with similar wording. Hakim said, "Sahih according to the criteria of Muslim." I say, it is not as he said, for the chain contains Abdul-Rahman bin Abdullah bin Utba bin Masud Kufi, from whom Muslim did not narrate. Bukhari only narrated from him in a suspended form (mualaq). Moreover, he became confused in his memory toward the end of his life. Qays bin Rabi corroborated him, and it appears that he was not confused in this particular narration. With these two chains, the hadith rises to the level of hasan, and it may be for this reason that Haythami also graded it hasan, as mentioned above.As for his statement, "The first to be called to Paradise," what is meant by it is a relative precedence, not an absolute one.