Qur’on faqat so‘zlar, grammatik tuzilmalar, badiiy tasvirlar, ohang va qofiyalarning yig‘indisidan iborat emas. U Xudo bilan inson o‘rtasidagi bevosita muloqot — xabar bo‘lib, doimiy va benazir adabiy mo‘jizadir. Na o‘tmishdagi, na hozirgi arablar qisqacha ifodalangan quyidagi oyatdagi ochiq chaqiriqqa javob bera olmadilar:

The Qur’aan is more than the sum total of its words, grammatical constructions, figures of speech, rhythms, and rhymes. It is a message, a direct communication between God and man, and it is a permanent inimitable literary miracle. Neither the Arabs of the past nor the present were able to meet the open challenge concisely expressed in the verse:

Iltimos, tarjima qilinadigan matnni yuboring. Hozircha faqat "and the verse:" iborasi keldi, va men uni tarjima qilishim uchun to'liq matn kerak.

and the verse:

Qur’on tarjima qilinmaydi; bunga urinish esa ahmoqlikdir. Arabcha grammatik konstruksiyalar, badiiy tasvir vositalari, qofiya va ohang boshqa tilda arabcha ifodalanganidek ifodalanib bo‘lmaydi. Bundan tashqari, tarjimada Qur’onning benazirligi yo‘qoladi va uning mo‘jizaviy chorlovi ma’nosiz bo‘lib qoladi, chunki hech qanday tarjimon, adabiy mahorati qanchalik buyuk bo‘lmasin, o‘zining benazirligini da’vo qila olmaydi. Qur’onni so‘zma-so‘z tarjima qilish ham mumkin emas, chunki arabcha so‘zlar ko‘pincha bir necha lug‘aviy ma’noga ega bo‘ladi, ularning majoziy ma’nolari esa aytib o‘tishga ham arzimaydi. Ko‘plab arabcha konstruksiyalar esa boshqa tilda ifodalab bo‘lmaydigan nozik ma’no soyalarini o‘z ichiga oladi. Hech qanday tarjimani Alloh kalomi deb atash yoki hisoblash mumkin emas. Alloh kalomi – Qur’oni arabiydir, buni O‘zi shunday deb aytgan:

The Qur’aan cannot be translated; any attempt to do so is folly. Arabic grammatical constructions, figures of speech, rhyme, and rhythm cannot be expressed in other than Arabic. Besides, in translation the Qur’aan’s inimitable quality is lost and its challenge becomes meaningless, for no translator, no matter how great his literary skills are, can claim inimitability. The Qur’aan cannot be literally translated because Arabic words often have more than one literal meaning, not to mention their figurative meanings. And, many Arabic constructions contain subtle shades of meanings which cannot be expressed in another language. No translation can be called or considered to be God’s word. God’s word is the Arabic Qur’aan, as He Himself said,

Qur’on go‘zalligini erkin yoki bo‘sh tarjimalar orqali ushlashga urinish ham takabburlik, chalg‘ituvchi va muvaffaqiyatsizlikka mahkum ishdir. “Odamlarni ko‘z yoshi va hayajonga soladigan, tovushlari o‘zidanoq ta’sir qiluvchi benazir ohang” 26 faqat arab tilida mavjud.

Attempts to catch the charm of the Qur’aan in loose or free translations are also presumptuous, misleading, and doomed to failure. “The inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy” 26 exists only in the Arabic.

Har qanday muvaffaqiyat o‘quvchilarni shunga ishontiradiki, ular Qur’onni tinglayotgan emas, balki aslida tarjimonning his-tuyg‘ularini va adabiy mahoratini tatib ko‘rmoqdalar. Hatto Qur’on ma’nolarining tarjimalari haqidagi da’volar ham yolg‘ondir, chunki bunday tarjimalar muallifi ko‘p ma’noli arabcha so‘zlar va o‘zbekcha ekvivalenti bo‘lmagan so‘zlar uchun o‘zi munosib deb hisoblagan ma’nolarni tanlaydi. U, shuningdek, haqiqiy va majoziy ma’nolar o‘rtasida tanlov qiladi va o‘zi to‘g‘ri deb bilgan ma’noni tarjima qiladi. Aslida barcha tarjimalar tafsirdir, ularning ba’zilari boshqalariga qaraganda aniqroqdir.

Any degree of success will only dupe readers into thinking that they are experiencing the Qur’aan, whereas in reality, they are experiencing the feelings of the translator and his literary skills. Even claims to translations of the Qur’aan’s meanings are false because the author of such translations chooses meanings which he feels are appropriate in the case of Arabic words which have more than one meaning and words which have no non-Arabic equivalent. He also chooses between literal and figurative meanings and translates the one which he considers appropriate. All translations are in fact tafseers, some more accurate than others.

Ko'pgina tarjimalar muqaddimasida klassik tafsirlar va lug'atlarning nomlari sanab o'tiladi, ular tarjimon tayangan manbalardir. Bu nozik masaladay tuyulishi mumkin, ammo boshqacha ifodalansa, farq yanada ravshan ko'rinishi mumkin. Mufassir tushuntiruvchi tarzda gapiradi, go'yo shunday demoqchidek: “Men oyatdan shuni tushunaman.” Tarjimon esa go'yo oyatning ma'nosini butunlay anglab olgandek va uni tarjima qilgandek gapiradi, go'yo: “Oyatning ma'nosi mana shudir.” Ikki yondashuv o'rtasidagi farq juda katta. Shuning uchun tarjimonlar muqaddima va sarlavhalarda bu tarjimaning Qur'on haqidagi shaxsiy tushunchasi ekanini ta'kidlashlari kerak. Tarjimon uchun eng yaxshi yo'l, ehtimol, klassik tafsirlarning asosiy matnini shunchaki tarjima qilish, zarur o'rinlarda boshqa mumkin bo'lgan ma'nolarni va parchalarning kontekstini izohlash uchun izohlardan foydalanish bo'lardi.

Most translations list in their forewords the names of the classical tafseers and lexicons on which they relied. This may seem to be a very fine point, but if it were put in another way perhaps the difference would be more obvious. The mufassir speaks in an explanatory way as if to say: “This is what I understand from the verse.” The translator speaks as if he has completely understood the verse’s meaning and translated it as if to say: “This is what the verse means.” The difference between the two approaches is quite vast. Hence, translators should emphasize in their prefaces and titles the fact that this is their personal understanding of the Qur’aan. Perhaps the best approach for a translator would be to simply translate the basic text of the classical tafseers using footnotes to explain other possible meanings and the context of the passages where necessary.