An honest question about published versions of the Quran

[DarkStar]

I will interject in this debate. The Qur'aan cannot be translated word for word, into any other language, as it is divine revelation. The meaning of it, can be translated.

The depth of expression, and the phrases used may not always be understood when translated literally, which is why translators have had to resort to brackets, explanations, interpolations. This is done so as to make it easier to read, and keep the text flowing.

The beauty of the Qur'aan is, that it is printed with the Arabic Original on the same page, so any doubts can be rectified by studying it. This is a big deterrent to purposeful mistranslation.

 

[Pembroke]

I will interject in this debate. The Qur'aan cannot be translated word for word, into any other language, as it is divine revelation. The meaning of it, can be translated.

The depth of expression, and the phrases used may not always be understood when translated literally, which is why translators have had to resort to brackets, explanations, interpolations. This is done so as to make it easier to read, and keep the text flowing.

The beauty of the Qur'aan is, that it is printed with the Arabic Original on the same page, so any doubts can be rectified by studying it. This is a big deterrent to purposeful mistranslation.

Interesting thread.

"The the people of Pharaoh picked him up (from the river): (It was intended) that (Moses) should be to them an adversary and a cause of sorrow: For Pharaoh and Haman and (all) their hosts were men of sin." (Quran, 28:8)

Questions:

1.
Taking the above example, to remove the parenthetical additions, does the Arabic version of the Quran, which I presume contains no parenthetical additions, literally say:

"The the people of Pharaoh picked him up that should be to them an adversary and a cause of sorrow: For Pharaoh and Haman and their hosts were men of sin."

2.
Is the 7th century Arabic as written in the Quran understood to the extent that it may be used in a conversation by modern Arabic speakers? If the difference between modern day Arabic and 7th century Arabic is the same as the difference between modern English and 11th century English the answer is no.

3.
Gerd Puin, who worked on the Sana'a Yemeni Quran discovered in 1972, said the following:

The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language.

If the Arabic version is incomprehensible (the text itself without any parenthetical additions or comments) to a great extent, what is the value of learning it by rote? I have a friend in Lahore with whom I went to college and he takes the position that learning by rote is a complete waste of time because, as an Urdu speaker, he doesn't understand what the Arabic words mean. And it seems even if he did, the 7th Century Arabic sentences would often be incomprehensible anyway and an interpreter or so-called 'expert' Imam would be required to give the words meaning.

• Comment about my question number 1.

Unless the person who answers my question is an expert at deciphering 7th century Arabic it would be impossible to answer. That is, the person answering this question would need to have real knowledge of 7th century Arabic, rather than simply being able to pronounce the letters and words through study by rote.

Thanks and

 

[greatsequence]

Interesting thread.





Questions:

1.
Taking the above example, to remove the parenthetical additions, does the Arabic version of the Quran, which I presume contains no parenthetical additions, literally say:

"The the people of Pharaoh picked him up that should be to them an adversary and a cause of sorrow: For Pharaoh and Haman and their hosts were men of sin."

This is the exactly why Parenthesis were added so that the people who "don't know" Arabic can understand the meaning as close as possible.

The Quranic Arabic is alive. Go to a Jumma Prayer to any Mosque in the Arab world and the imam will be communicating in the Pure old Arabic and the People sitting will be understanding the Pure old Arabic.

If one does not understand few words or verses of the Quran you can not claim the Arabic is dead.

I pity the "professor" who could not understand the every 5th sentence in the Quran.

 

[Awesome]

1.
Taking the above example, to remove the parenthetical additions, does the Arabic version of the Quran, which I presume contains no parenthetical additions, literally say:

"The the people of Pharaoh picked him up that should be to them an adversary and a cause of sorrow: For Pharaoh and Haman and their hosts were men of sin."

Not being familiar with it, I'd say usually the parenthesis have been added in by the translators. The original Arabic does not contain that.

2.

Is the 7th century Arabic as written in the Quran understood to the extent that it may be used in a conversation by modern Arabic speakers? If the difference between modern day Arabic and 7th century Arabic is the same as the difference between modern English and 11th century English the answer is no.

It IS usable, if you talk to Sudanese people in Arabic for a second you'd think they are reading out of the Quran. Spoken Arabic is however quite different.

If the Arabic version is incomprehensible (the text itself without any parenthetical additions or comments) to a great extent, what is the value of learning it by rote? I have a friend in Lahore with whom I went to college and he takes the position that learning by rote is a complete waste of time because, as an Urdu speaker, he doesn't understand what the Arabic words mean. And it seems even if he did, the 7th Century Arabic sentences would often be incomprehensible anyway and an interpreter or so-called 'expert' Imam would be required to give the words meaning.

Its translatable, only thing is like everything written, its open to interpretation. You can never tell tonality, some words change meaning in context. The Quran does not claim to be relevant for only 7th Century interpretation, but for all times. That to me means, that as human intellect and understanding evolves, so should its interpretation. Only difference that we hold on to is that the interpretation should come from the original text.

About learning/memorizing the original text as a non-Arabic speaker, you must understand you're mixing two very different aspects of faith and devotion to the religion.

1. Understanding the Quran is a scholarly act, the benefit is theological or at least thats what the aim is.

2. Memorizing the Quran, people who are known as "Hafiz", that's a spiritual path stemming from the belief that the words, the scripts, the sounds and letters, everything is blessed in the Quran and hence there are blessings of God involved in it.

I would say its self-defeating to memorize the Quran and not pursue scholarly knowledge simultaneously. Which I think some people with the opportunity to seek knowledge always end up getting.

• Comment about my question number 1.

Unless the person who answers my question is an expert at deciphering 7th century Arabic it would be impossible to answer. That is, the person answering this question would need to have real knowledge of 7th century Arabic, rather than simply being able to pronounce the letters and words through study by rote.

Thanks and [/QUOTE]

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

Words in parenthesis are added to make translations easy to understand. But, translations are not accepted if it involves only the translators view. The are interpreted with reference to the Hadis (saying of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H)). Or if it is more complicated then religious scholars decide what it means, considering that there interpretation does not violate any Islamic principle.. .

 

[TechLahore]

Truthseeker, as a practical matter, I usually refer to multiple english translations by different scholars when something is not clear. My favourite translation of the Quran is by the great scholar, Abdullah Yusufali. Not only is his Arabic scholarship excellent, his use of the english language is phenomenal.

The website al-islam.org has an online Digital Quran which lets you conveniently pick multiple translations in checkboxes. You can thus see the arabic next to two or three english translations of the same passage(s).

 

[Pembroke]

Hi greatsequence,

Thanks for your response...

This is the exactly why Parenthesis were added so that the people who "don't know" Arabic can understand the meaning as close as possible.

Okay, so for example, you are confirming that the Quran says that he (Moses) was simply 'picked up'. Picked up? Picked up from where? Apparently the Arabic Quran does not include the phrase 'from the river'. It is detail like that, if left out, that would make reading the literal Quran a bit of a stumble.

Indeed, the inclusion of parenthetical remarks can be astonishingly significant. For example take Quran 17:1 about Mohamed's night journey:

Who did take His Servant for a journey by night,
From the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque.

After 'the Farthest Mosque' in most Qurans I have read the words 'Al Aqsa' are added parenthetically. It would be of great interest to know who originally added those words. Of course there was no Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem when Mohamed allegedly made his journey. In fact the Muslims didn't arrive in Jerusalem until their military invasion some five years after Mohamed's death.
And think of ALL the implications that particular parenthetical inclusion has had! Without it, the Muslims have no claim to Jerusalem as a sacred spot! Again, it is not god's words stating the location of the 'Farthest Mosque', it is someone else who is lost to history.

To be honest, I am surprised that pious Muslims are not outraged that translated Qurans include parenthetical commentary as their inclusion is surely an insult to god and his claim that the Quran is a book whose passages are 'without doubt'. Their very inclusion implies that god's words are insufficient. If they were sufficient, there would be no need for their inclusion.

I was commenting on a Facebook site recently where the Admin was featuring quotes from the Quran in English. Many of the comments praised this saying that it was good to understand what the passages meant. Tis of course implies that before seeing the English translations they didn't know what the passages meant, even though they may have learnt them in Arabic by rote. I wonder what percentage of Muslims are in this situation. It's probably similar to Christians where a small fraction have actually read and understood the entire Bible.

The Quranic Arabic is alive. Go to a Jumma Prayer to any Mosque in the Arab world and the imam will be communicating in the Pure old Arabic and the People sitting will be understanding the Pure old Arabic.

Interesting. I can understand that Imam reading verbatim from the Quran, but does he not use modern vernacular when explaining his own particular take on the passage? There have been thousands of new words and phrases added to English since the 11th century which would make using only those words rather difficult to use in conversation today. Again, do Arabs in conversation talking about every-day matters use the same Arabic that is found in the Quran?

If one does not understand few words or verses of the Quran you can not claim the Arabic is dead.

Yes, that is reasonable I suppose. One could claim that Geoffrey Chaucer's English isn't dead, as one can get the gist of what he means if you do a bit of squirming, but we wouldn't use his words and phrases in modern conversations. Is it not the same with respect to 7th century Arabic and modern Arabic?

I pity the "professor" who could not understand the every 5th sentence in the Quran.

As far as I understand, Gerd Puin could read and understand the words of course, but because of matters like various omissions, such as what we see added parenthetically in the translations, the passages often lacked lucidity. It would be lovely if the Yemenis made the manuscripts available to the world's scholars. Why won't they? That they are keeping them hidden only makes one suspicious that they are weary of what will be found.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

Dear PDF Muslim Members,

I just read a post by luffwaffe on the thread (http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/22507-allah-supreme-but-god-different-other-religions.html) :

"049.013 O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)."

I assume this quote comes from the Quran. What I don't understand is where the text words in parentheses come from. I have read a few different translations in English of the Quran and they all have extra text phrases in parenthesis to "improve understanding". If you read the Quran in Arabic does the text also have these parenthetical "amplifications" of the original Quranic text? Who added these extra words or phrases? Who has the authority to add words to the Quran to "improve understanding"? Have these added phrases been included in published versions of the Quran for many centuries? Are the same "explanatory phrases and words" found in all Arabic and English publications of the Quran?

Please advise. Thank you.

I would like to add some things I know, since our brethren the forum members are, just like us, not very well-versed neither in Arabic nor in the science of the meanings of the Quran.

What I don't understand is where the text words in parentheses come from.

The translator usually DOES NOT have the authority to add them. They come from a tafsiir (commentary on the Quranic text), which were done by scholars who were experts in this field, according to the context of the understanding of their times. It is believed that the meanings will become more and more comprehensible as human knowledge progresses, and would be best understood the best at the last hour (said by one of those scholars, the mufassiruun).

These parantheses are put because the translation is very very very insufficient for understanding for someone who doesn't understand Quranic Arabic (Arabs too don't, btw).

Who has the authority to add words to the Quran to "improve understanding"?

The translators, who are themselves students of the books of the greater scholars, take the liberty to plug in these "sentence-completors" FROM their understanding of those scholars' work.

Are the same "explanatory phrases and words" found in all Arabic and English publications of the Quran?

No, they depend on the translator, their knowledge of the scholarly-literature and their grasp of the Arabic and their native language. Most English translations are by Englishmen, Pakistanis, Indians, and recently Arabs, and obviously either one or the other language was not top-quality, though everybody would have tried their best.

Have these added phrases been included in published versions of the Quran for many centuries? Are the same "explanatory phrases and words" found in all Arabic and English publications of the Quran?

Don't know. I've always seen them in Urdu and English translations, and they were all donr in the 19-20th centuries.


Illustration by examples of classical Arabic
You have to understand sir that the translations are the approximations of the approximations of the approximations of the approximations of ... the approximations of the meanings in this case.

Arabic doesn not easily translate into English, let alone Quranic Arabic. You won't like to hear this just as I didn't like it when I first reached this conclusion, but here goes: Arabic is a language for the philosophically-inclined, not for for the pedestrians who follow an 'imperative paradigm' (see how computer languages were written) as in 'we do A then B and we get C as a result'. Unfortunately English, Urdu and to an extent dialectical Arabic have reduced tyhemselves to the second category.

I'll elaborate a little. In the time when 'classical' Arabic was spoken, a woman said to her husband that he was too 'spendthrift'(gave away his wealth on friends and the poor) and he replied EXTEMPORE "the house that sits atop the mountain ridge gathers the least rainwater", and she was content with his explanation (cf Nouman A Khan's lecture). What he meant was "since I'm the highest and the best of the society (massive self-praise going on!) I'm beyond caring for money, money's for the low people who're running after wealth" (underlined words refer to the height of the mountain-abode). They spoke in parables and metaphores, AND SO DOES ALLAAH IN THE QURAN, and it was perfectly well-understood by the people of the time.

As another example, a favorite Hadiith of modern Evangelists that they use to prove violence in Islam is when Umar RA was told by Muhammad SAW to go and cut a certain man's (a hypocrite probably but I'm not sure, but he was blaspheming in his poetry) tongue off, the Evangelists don't tell us what happened next was the Umar RA took a bag of gold coins and gave it to him so he'd stop demoralizing the Muslims through his poetry!

Those were people of a civilization so advanced in language that poets were the most respected people; markets(periodic trade fairs if you wish) were arranged around events of poetry and prose; and battles were fought by bringing out each side's weaver of words and the losing poet was often the sole casualty of the battle!


A comment on the quoted aayah
I happened to hear the same aayah ('verse' if you will) or something similar yesterday and when it got to the part And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)., I thought it would say wa huaa 3alaa kulli sha2in KHABIIR. But it didn't, it said wa huaa 3alaa kulli sha2in 3ALIIM. subHaanAllaah, WOW. khabiir is the more ubiquitous word, and is the frst thing that comes to the mind. BUT it means having been told (given knolwdge), and 3aliim means knower by default(as a source of knowledge would know). Allah wouldn't use the word we use for ourselves, he's not been 'made knowledgeable', he 'IS THE SOURCE where the knowledge about everything emanates', but usually when people talk they have second-hand knowledge and the use of 3aliim is illogical for us (e.g. I have the khabar/knowledge of Newton's 1st law of motion and Newton had the 3ilm/knowledge of Newton's 1st law of motion). Frankly, I'd have never thought of the subtlety if I was writing an Arabic text. MOST TRANSLATORS SUFFER FROM THE SAME LACK OF DEPTH, unfortunately.

Summary and perspective opinion
To sum up, reading a translation will not help you relly understand Islam, the best you can do if you're not able to learn classical Arabic is to read a better translation and a better tafsiir (~commentary) together. The same goes for all of us the Muslims. We've grown so ignorant that we have begun quoting aayaat and aHaadiith in our argumentation, even our scholars avoided it, since not many of them had adequate understanding. Well, our true scholars avoided argumentation altogether. But now everyone is a faqiih (jurisprudence-'extrapolator'), a mufassir (Scripture- explainer) and a muftii (opinion(fatwaa)-giver). Whereas earlier this century bin Baaz (a major scholar of the salafii movement (what you'd call wahabii movement)) was aked and he replied that there were maybe two muftiyuun alive at his time (he named them) and he wasn't one of them. Now OBL et al and fellow-forumers et al are giving fataawaa left and right, and are obstinate that their opinion is right! This is, as foretold "in the end times the scholars would be few and the loudmouths/opinionated will be many" (sans ref, sorry), one of the greater fitan (tribulations, tests, fuzzy-areas) of our times for the ummah, and we're devoid of people of knowledge and will that could get us out of it.

Hope I did contribute something that helped fellow forumers understand some of the context of the quoted aayaat and also generally, although my knowledge is puny and insignificant I only have sincerity to show.

 

[EgO Boy]

I strongly suggest to change Pakistan's official language to Arabic or be made compulsory.
There is no harm in studying more than one language in school.
It will not only benifit us from the understanding of religon but also it will help us economically. We can literary take over Arabian market.
today, Egypt is the leading arab nation taking over key bussiness and positions in middleast.
This will also help us to distant from indian cultural invasion.

BATMAN YOU ARE THE MAN.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

I strongly suggest to change Pakistan's official language to Arabic or be made compulsory.
There is no harm in studying more than one language in school.
It will not only benifit us from the understanding of religon but also it will help us economically. We can literary take over Arabian market.
today, Egypt is the leading arab nation taking over key bussiness and positions in middleast.
This will also help us to distant from indian cultural invasion.

I agree, but this is not the topic of discussion here.

PS: I just realized the thread wasn't started today but about two years ago!

 

[Pembroke]

Hi BelligerentPacifis

You have made some interesting points...

The translator usually DOES NOT have the authority to add them. They come from a tafsiir (commentary on the Quranic text), which were done by scholars who were experts in this field, according to the context of the understanding of their times. It is believed that the meanings will become more and more comprehensible as human knowledge progresses, and would be best understood the best at the last hour (said by one of those scholars, the mufassiruun).

> I think you're saying that as humans become more knowledgable about ancient Arabic we'll not need the parenthetical additions any longer. I reckon that is just wishful thinking I'm afraid. You must consider that the Quran in Arabic is often unclear - hence the need for tafsir, in Arabic, to interpret the sentences and effectively provide the same result as parenthetical additions in translations.

These parantheses are put because the translation is very very very insufficient for understanding for someone who doesn't understand Quranic Arabic (Arabs too don't, btw).

> Indeed, the verbatim translations are insufficient to understand, but as you sort of imply, even the original Arabic itself is often incomprehensible and hence the need to refer to Arabic tafsir to understand what is being said. This is what Gerd Puin was referring to, the Quran read on its own is often pretty difficult to understand, despite the book's protestations to the contrary:
2:2 "This is the Book about which there is no doubt"
This is contradicted by the need for the tafsir to interpret the Quranic passages. If there was no doubt, there would be no need for interpretations.

Illustration by examples of classical Arabic[/B]
You have to understand sir that the translations are the approximations of the approximations of the approximations of the approximations of ... the approximations of the meanings in this case.

> I don't think that's true. For example, Pickthall's translation and Yusif Ali's translations are direct translations. That is, they read the Quran themselves, having learnt how to read Arabic form Arab and Quranic scholars, and wrote the Quran in English. They weren't approximations of approximations. They were approximations of the Arabic Quran. Note Yusuf Ali's preface to is first addition in 1934:

Gentle and discerning reader! what I wish to present to you is an English Interpretation, side by side with the Arabic Text. The English shall be, not a mere substitution of one word for another, but the best expression I can give to the fullest meaning which I can understand from the Arabic Text. The rhythm, music, and exalted tone of the original should be reflected in the English interpretation. It may be but a faint reflection, but such beauty and power as my pen can command shall be brought to its service. I want to make English itself an Islamic language, if such a person as I can do it, and I must give you all the accessory aid which I can.

Here's Yusuf Ali's 2:67:
"And remember Moses said to his people: "(Allah) commands that ye sacrifice a heifer."
This implies that the original Arabic is missing the word 'Allah'. That's an astonishing omission wouldn't you say? Without the word 'Allah' the passage is quite incomplete. And there are many examples of such omissions throughout.

You won't like to hear this just as I didn't like it when I first reached this conclusion, but here goes: Arabic is a language for the philosophically-inclined, not for for the pedestrians who follow an 'imperative paradigm' (see how computer languages were written) as in 'we do A then B and we get C as a result'. Unfortunately English, Urdu and to an extent dialectical Arabic have reduced tyhemselves to the second category.

> That sounds like obfuscation to me. The Arabic Mohamed spoke was spoken by all in his society, from those in Authority to Caravan Traders. Sure there were probably aphorisms and metaphors, as we have today in English for example, but to claim it's a language for the "philosophically-inclined" is an underserved aggrandisement.

I'll elaborate a little. In the time when 'classical' Arabic was spoken, a woman said to her husband that he was too 'spendthrift'(gave away his wealth on friends and the poor) and he replied EXTEMPORE "the house that sits atop the mountain ridge gathers the least rainwater", and she was content with his explanation (cf Nouman A Khan's lecture). What he meant was "since I'm the highest and the best of the society (massive self-praise going on!) I'm beyond caring for money, money's for the low people who're running after wealth" (underlined words refer to the height of the mountain-abode). They spoke in parables and metaphores, AND SO DOES ALLAAH IN THE QURAN, and it was perfectly well-understood by the people of the time.

> Occasionally the odd parable, aphorism and metaphor may have been introduced to add colour to speech, but like today, it would have not likely been used extensively by your average person in the roads and streets.

Those were people of a civilization so advanced in language that poets were the most respected people; markets(periodic trade fairs if you wish) were arranged around events of poetry and prose; and battles were fought by bringing out each side's weaver of words and the losing poet was often the sole casualty of the battle!

> In ancient British society, poets - those who were literate - were also held in great esteem. But just because Poets were highly esteemed it does not mean that the language used was any more developed or mystical than any other.

To sum up, reading a translation will not help you relly understand Islam, the best you can do if you're not able to learn classical Arabic is to read a better translation and a better tafsiir (~commentary) together. The same goes for all of us the Muslims. We've grown so ignorant that we have begun quoting aayaat and aHaadiith in our argumentation, even our scholars avoided it, since not many of them had adequate understanding. Well, our true scholars avoided argumentation altogether.This is, as foretold "in the end times the scholars would be few and the loudmouths/opinionated will be many" (sans ref, sorry), one of the greater fitan (tribulations, tests, fuzzy-areas) of our times for the ummah, and we're devoid of people of knowledge and will that could get us out of it.

The Delphic Oracle
I reckon that the story about Allah, Mohamed, the Quran and the Tafsir is very much like the Grecian Delphic Oracle. The Delphic Oracle would take various potions to enter into a trance-like state so that she could better act as a conduit with the gods. When she gave answers to questions very often what she said was largely unintelligible, or at best vague, and it was left to an important priest to interpret the meaning of her words - which were of course the words of the gods spoken through her. See the similarities?


What would be VERY interesting is a word for word translation WITHOUT ANY parenthetical additions. Then a comment can be appended beside the verse or underneath it to show the interpreted meaning along with any required parenthetical additions. This would give us a good idea of the clarity of the Quran in its original form.


Lastly, consider the mysterious letters that appear at the top of numerous chapters in the Quran. No one has any idea what they are. I ask you to picture Mohamed receiving these chapters from god. You'd think Mohamed would have asked God what on earth the letters meant if he didn't know, after all the book is supposed to be without doubt. Further, there is not a single tafsir that addresses these letters. You would have thought that there would have been a record of Mohamed's followers asking him what those letters meant. After all, quite a few were supposed to have memorised the Quran, and yet no one is on record asking Mohamed what those letters mean. I don't think there is a single entry in any Tafsir of Mohamed himself talking about the letters. How very, very strange? It's as if they didn't exist during Mohamed's time!

To my mind, clearly, those are the marks of the scribe who wrote the Quran we see today. Whether it was the original scribe, or some scribe generations later we do not know. They were probably put there by him as a personal marginal reminder of something. Then, whoever made copies, copied his marginal notes thinking they were part of what allegedly god told Mohamed. And lo and behold, today we have those letters which represent some sort of bizarre and improbable 'miracle' of the Quran!?

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

Thank you for your interest in this issue. You've written such a great deal in one post that it is impossible for me to attempt answers to all the points you raise, particularly right now that I'm engaged in several things at once that are all urgent and important at the same time. Replying seriously to serious posts takes time, as you would appreciate, and that being in extremely short supply this side of the PC screen, please make do with what I can give you. Thanks.

I think you're saying that as humans become more knowledgable about ancient Arabic we'll not need the parenthetical additions any longer. I reckon that is just wishful thinking I'm afraid. ...

I am not saying anything, I don't have opinions. I'm just repeating what I heard was written by a mufassir. What I gathered of what he meant is that many things would have come to pass and they'd be more recognizable a posteriori as being referred to in the Qur'aanic text.

...
You have to understand sir that the translations are the approximations of the approximations of the approximations of the approximations of ... the approximations of the meanings in this case.

> I don't think that's true. For example, Pickthall's translation and Yusif Ali's translations are direct translations. That is, they read the Quran themselves, having learnt how to read Arabic form Arab and Quranic scholars, and wrote the Quran in English. They weren't approximations of approximations. They were approximations of the Arabic Quran. ...

I did not mean they were translations of translations ... of the Qur'aan. They are approximations in meaning. The words of the Quraan do not directly translate. It has its own lexicon. And that lexicon is explained through the Sunnah of the Last Messenger SAW, that of His Companions RA, the tafaasiir that some of them RA wrote, the tafasiir of their students, those of their students' students and so on to this day.

Now if somebody knows Arabic, and I mean classical Arabic of the times of the descent of the Quraan, and simply uses words as tools to translate the Quraanic text, it won't really work, at at least two levels:

1. like I said the Quraan has its ownlexicon within the Arabic lexicon (and sodoes the sharii3ah), you need to have a firm understanding of this lexicon and its translation into human-Arabic or you'd say things that mean something other than the original. E.g. you can't translate the word darajah into stairs or ladder. You need to know that it means the ranks of takliif - how sternly a person will be judged in the qiyaamah according to the responsibilities they were assigned in this life, the 'what your right-hand possesses' concept.

2. Arabic is notorious for having numerous synonyms for everything you name, each with a slightly different shade of meaning. When trans;ators translate, they pick one of those Arabic meanings (some have been described as having made an effort at finding a context-apposite one) and find a suitable word in English. And the real meaning is often obscured or suffers partial loss.

Indeed, the verbatim translations are insufficient to understand, but as you sort of imply, even the original Arabic itself is often incomprehensible and hence the need to refer to Arabic tafsir to understand what is being said. This is what Gerd Puin was referring to, the Quran read on its own is often pretty difficult to understand, despite the book's protestations to the contrary:
2:2 "This is the Book about which there is no doubt"
This is contradicted by the need for the tafsir to interpret the Quranic passages. If there was no doubt, there would be no need for interpretations.

The Qur'aan is very clear and its meanings speak to you IF you're looking from the inside of the diin i.e. as a Muslim, and not from the outside as a literary exercise to find weaknesses in it.

Each man takes from its meanings at a personal level according to his worth and his niiyah - intention.

The tafsiir is there because imaan (they usually translate it to belief and faith, but don't confuse it with the normal-Christian concepts that go by these names, it is more like knowledge) was to weaken from one generation to the next, so the same words that took the first ones as close as a direct conversation with their Creator, meant nothing but beautiful Arabic words to the latter.
wAllaah o 3aalam, and I know very little.

Lastly, consider the mysterious letters that appear at the top of numerous chapters in the Quran. No one has any idea what they are.
...
no one is on record asking Mohamed what those letters mean. I don't think there is a single entry in any Tafsir of Mohamed himself talking about the letters. How very, very strange? It's as if they didn't exist during Mohamed's time!

The words like alif laam miim and others (I'm guessing there's fewer than half a dozen) are not supposed to be understood by the 'commoners' of this world. I know I sound awkward right there, but that's how it is. Some of the Companions RA understood their significance (I'm not saying meaning), and the rest the power in them, and the significance in them, and (and I'm conjecturing here) the fact that they're beyond the understandable. Just to give you a peek in, one of them is said to release a person who is stuck in their body on the death bed in pain and is unable to neither die nor come back.

Even the arrangements of letters in well-known-and-understood Arabic words has special significances. E. g. 3Alii RA said "I can begin talking about the b in bismillaah ir raHmaan ir raHiim and the sun will set and rise again and I'd have only begun" or something to that effect. And we [muslims] know that this is a matter-of-the-fact claim.

There are some things where you don't go, and these [usually-three-letter] 'words' is one of them. You also don't go disturb the green rocks in the ka3bah for example! Or think about the 3aqaa2id since you'll just spew philosophy and confuse yourself rather then get an explanation; you just accept humankind will know what humankind is allowed to know.

... I don't think there is a single entry in any Tafsir of Mohamed himself ...

There is no tafsiir of Muhammad SAW (and may my mother and my father be slain at his feet). There is only the siirah of Muhammad SAW, his actions and his demeanor explains the Qur'aan. The Messengers ASA do not write tafasiir. Muusaa AS wouln't have come down with the tablets of the Tauraat and said okay now I'll write a book explaining The Book. The Last Messenger SAW wasn't permitted to learn to either read or write in human language, otherwise unbelieving people would've said he copied ideas from elsewhere. Te last Messenger SAW likewise wasn't permitted to leave male progeny otherwise people would've automatically assigned prophetic qualities to them, negating the termination of the descent of the message, and worst still some attributes of deification (some have almost done regardless), while we know people do not inherit their place jannah.


wallaahu 3ilm us Sawaab
I'm not even a student, much less a scholar. I gave you the answer of the average Muslim Joe.