Abū ʿĀṣim, on the authority of Ibn ʿAwn, said: “Whenever a question came to al-Shaʿbī he would exercise caution, whereas Ibrāhīm would speak—and keep on speaking.” (1)

Jaʿfar ibn ʿAwn, from Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylā, said: “Ibrāhīm was a man of qiyās (analogical reasoning), while al-Shaʿbī was a man of āthār (transmitted reports).” (2)

Ibn al-Mubārak, on the authority of Ibn ʿAwn, reported: “Al-Shaʿbī was open and approachable, whereas Ibrāhīm was reserved; but when it came time to issue a fatwa, al-Shaʿbī would draw back and Ibrāhīm would open up.” (2)

Salamah ibn Kuhayl said: “Whenever al-Shaʿbī and Ibrāhīm were together, Ibrāhīm remained silent.”

Abū Nuʿaym related: Abū al-Jābiya al-Farrāʾ told us that al-Shaʿbī said, “We are not the fuqahāʾ; we merely heard the hadith and narrated them. The true fuqahāʾ are those who, once they learn, act.” (3)

Mālik ibn Mighwal said: “I heard al-Shaʿbī say, ‘I wish I had never learned any of this knowledge.’” (4)

[The author comments:] This is because knowledge is a proof against its possessor: he must act upon it and alert the uninformed, commanding and forbidding as needed. Furthermore, it is liable to be sought without sincerity, to become a cause for boasting and disputation, and to be used in pursuit of fleeting worldly status and leadership.

Al-Ḥumaydī narrated: Sufyān, from Ibn Shubrumah, said that al-Shaʿbī was asked about something but gave no answer. A man present remarked, “Abū ʿAmr says such-and-such about it.” Al-Shaʿbī replied: