the agreement of Abū Ḥātim with al-Bukhārī in this classification has revealed to me that his aforementioned denial does not mean that there is no second entry under the name (Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr ibn Abī), but rather — and Allāh knows best — that there is no other person who narrated the ḥadīth of (al-Jarīn) except (Muḥammad ibn Abī ibn Kaʿb), meaning: he leans towards the view that he is the one who narrated this ḥadīth, and not (Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr ibn Abī). At this point, another issue arises, which is: where is the attribution by Abū Ḥātim to al-Bukhārī regarding "making the name two names" and their classifications for (the Muḥammads) being entirely similar? This is something that has not become clear to me, (and above every possessor of knowledge is one more knowing)! On this occasion, I say: one of the things I noticed in the biography of (Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr ibn Abī) in the three books is that (the wife of Abī) was neither named nor given a kunyah by al-Bukhārī and Ibn Ḥibbān (7/368), leading the latter to mistakenly believe she was a follower of the Tābiʿīn; thus he included (this Muḥammad) — the narrator from her — in (the generation of the followers of the Tābiʿīn), which is one of his errors — may Allāh have mercy on him! For the woman is (Umm al-Ṭufayl) as explicitly stated by Ibn Abī Ḥātim in the biography of this (Muḥammad), and she is a well-known Companion mentioned in "al-Ṣaḥābiyyāt," among them Ibn Ḥibbān in "Kitāb al-Thiqāt" (3/460), and she has a ḥadīth in "Musnad Aḥmad" (6/375-376) in the story of Sabiʿah al-Aslamiyyah, that she marries when she gives birth. Accordingly, Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr is a Tābiʿī. What further supports this is that the narrator from him (Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Saʿd ibn Zurārah) is himself from the Tābiʿīn and their trustworthy ones; he narrated from some Companions and some Tābiʿīn, and therefore Ibn Ḥibbān included him in both generations: (the Tābiʿīn) and (their followers) (5/375 and 7/372). Given this status of the student, it is very rare that his teacher would be from (the followers of the Tābiʿīn), so reflect! What becomes clear to me from this research — which has extended longer than I anticipated — is that it did not..