زَعَمَ رَجُلٌ أَنَّ الْعِلْمَ كَلِمَاتٌ تُحْفَظُ وَلَا تُثْمِرُ شَيْئًا.
A man claimed that knowledge was merely memorised words producing no fruit.
فَقَالَ صَاحِبُهُ: أَتُنْكِرُ أَثَرَهُ وَأَنْتَ تَرَاهُ فِي الطِّبِّ وَالزِّرَاعَةِ؟
His companion replied: Do you deny its effects while seeing them in medicine and agriculture?
لَيْسَ الْعِلْمُ حِفْظَ الْأَلْفَاظِ وَحْدَهُ، وَلَكِنَّهُ فَهْمٌ يُصْلِحُ الْعَمَلَ؛ وَإِنَّمَا تَظْهَرُ ثَمَرَتُهُ حِينَ يَنْفَعُ النَّاسَ.
Knowledge is not memorisation alone but understanding that improves action; its fruit appears when it benefits people.
فَإِنْ كَثُرَ الْقَوْلُ وَقَلَّ النَّفْعُ، فَبِمَ نَفْتَخِرُ؟
If words multiply while benefit is small, what is there to boast about?
This passage is dialogic. Analyse the claim, the responder’s objection, his corrective distinction and his final challenge. The reporting verb zaʿama can also colour the first claim as doubtful in suitable contexts.
The first passage moved from a scene to a maxim; this one proceeds through claim, interrogation, correction and conditional challenge. Its different purpose requires a different rhetorical sequence.