I am curious, if you could, give me an example of where the original Arabic version is more powerful than, say, an English version?
I've heard that before, and I think it's bullshit. Facts is facts. Evidence is evidence. No fact or evidence is going to be more powerful if given in a different language. About the only thing that might be said in defense of this is that a specific language may make some specific poetic attempt seem more powerful, while it would add nothing to another bit of poetic stream originating in a different language. Poetry depends on some unfathomable quality of language (defined specifically as poetry) to add power to whatever the fuck it is that poetry does. But you don't formulate arguments in poetry. You don't defend a serial killer in court using poetry, because poetry is a crappy way to truth.
Poetry might lead to inspiration, but inspiration is not knowledge: "Yeah, but I was so moved by that poetry that it brought tears to my eyes and made me want to be a better person." Well La Dee fucking Dah; Good for you.
It's possible that Arabic is a more poetic language, but I rather doubt it, and if it is, it hardly gives Arabs a leg up in reasoning. Language may allow us to communicate, but it also creates traps of logical fallacy through language traps like equivocation. It's one of man's greatest advantages, and one of his greatest downfalls. It's a two edged sword.
When you want to manipulate, bamboozle, or con someone into believing nonsense, you use language to blind them. It can be used for nefarious purposes. So when someone says a thing is more powerful when said in Arabic, I don't know or care what that means. Facts is facts. Evidence is evidence. And I'm not impressed with fancy pants rhetoric that makes it sound better in a different language.