No. However:
I think the argument deserves a little more credit than it is given. As a native (Anatolian, western Oghuz) Turkish speaker I find it notoriously difficult to translate most Turkish into English. I'm not claiming that the apolegetic argument is correct (for it quite blatantly is not) but I'm sure that reading the qu'ran in its classical arabic will endow one with greater societal context. That of course does not make the book inerrant, divine, or perfect, in any shape or form.
In one sense the argument is definitely correct ... if anything the Qur'an usually acquires artificial clarity and certainty through translation into other languages.
Classical Arabic is, I think, a largely artificial linguistic construct designed to make sense of the Qur'an. It's not the language of the Qur'an, but it is "closer" to the meaning of most terms than translation into other languages would be.
There are very difficult and fascinating questions about how much the Qur'an reflects "real language" at all. I believe anxiety over this issue is one of the reasons why oral recitation has been given so much importance in Islamic tradition: It isn't remotely clear what 'language' the Qur'an as we have it represents. I am reminded of the line in Ibn Mas'ud's codex that held that the Qur'an mushaf consists of different "dialects."
Yet the various surahs and ayas are certainly not read in different dialects nowadays! And the early Qur'anic orthography was far too limited to specify how it reflects dialect variation; plus our information on actual spoken Arabic of the time is remarkably minimal and late.
So (since I think Ibn Mas'ud's variant text was right) the Qur'an is essentially recited/read in an artificially uniform way that diverges from the complex linguistic content actually reflected in the text. In this sense, the recitation is an artificial creation that reflects the conventions of much later Islamic tradition, and thus one should technically translate the recitation in Classical Arabic *differently* than the mushaf itself, the text of which is not written in any real-world language.
How can one ever adequately translate this complexity into ANY language? You can't, because it is a gestalt problem consisting of orthographic, dialectic, oral, and theological variations over centuries. All one can do is take a certain narrow stopping point ... say the 1924 Cairo text ... and translate it according to a specific set of rules, while understanding that they are limited. On top of that, you can attempt to analyze the meaning of specific verses, which requires not just broad linguistic and orthographic competence, but also historical context.
As so often is the case, Muslim tradition itself recognized that exact point, and attempted just such a scholarly project in connection with specifying how to read the Qur'an, which is reflected in the great medieval works on Qur'anic exegesis and language (including canonizing the orthodox qiraat). But they were limited in many respects, of which piety was just one.
This is why I like to say that Muslims are actually right that you cannot meaningfully translate the Qur'an, but they are right for the wrong reasons: we cannot (yet) translate the Qur'an effectively because the script is too defective, too much has been done to the text over too long of a period, and our knowledge about the actual linguistic context of its various components is far too limited. Classical Arabic is itself already a kind of translation of the text, and translating Classical Arabic into English just worsens the problem.
Topic: Islam's 'Protestant Reformation'