So it would seem that he is the first one—Allah willing—on the assumption that “al-Azhar” was an epithet of Bakr ibn ʿAmr, or the name of a more remote forefather, or else that a mistake has occurred in recording his lineage.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ ʿAbd al-Ghanī ibn Saʿīd slipped, for he wrote: “Muḥammad ibn Ḥabban—with the ḥāʾ pronounced with fatḥa—of whom Abū Ṭāhir al-Dhuhlī transmitted.” He then added: “And with the ḥāʾ pronounced with ḍamma: Muḥammad ibn Hubban, from whom Abū Qutaybah Salm ibn al-Faḍl narrated.”

Al-Ṣūrī said, “They are one and the same person, and the correct vocalization is with ḍamma.”

I say: In al-Ṭabarānī’s collections he has nothing from this narrator except a single hadith on the authority of Kāmil ibn Ṭalḥa, which he cited in his Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ and his Muʿjam al-Aṣghar⦗1⦘.

Abū ʿAbd Allah ibn Mandah remarked, “He is not of that standing.”

Abū Naṣr ibn Mākūlā⦗2⦘ said: “Muḥammad ibn Ḥabban ibn al-Azhar al-Bāhilī—with fatḥa—transmitted from Abū ʿĀṣim; among those who narrated from him is Aḥmad ibn ʿUbayd Allah al-Nahrdayrī. And there is also Muḥammad ibn Ḥabban, Abū Bakr, who transmitted from Abū ʿĀṣim.”

ʿAbd al-Ghanī mentioned him, and he was meticulous—nothing concerning the shaykh of his shaykh escaped him. Likewise, Judge al-Dhuhlī was among the painstaking; nothing about his own teachers was hidden from him.

Al-Ṣūrī maintained, “They are but one person.”

Ibn Mākūlā then replied, “No, rather they are two; the nisba distinguishes them, and so does the grandfather. Thus, if our teacher al-Ṣūrī accurately fixed the name with ḍamma, he nonetheless erred in thinking they were a single individual. In reality, they are two, each named Muḥammad ibn Ḥabban. And if he did not master the matter…"