Translation of `Jinn`
-
peace
I'm strongly against just leaving 'Jinn' as it is in the book.
We should translate EVERY WORD. Even the NAMES of people, because sometimes they have meanings that are important to the message.We should have a good, formal discussion to come up with a good translation for Jinn using the context of the Quran.
Ayman's article/thread is a good start.I think Arnold should post his article as well ( i don't know why he hasn't) so we can look at all views and follow the best.
As for me, I like either Kyle's translation, or Arnold's (jinn is an adjective describing just one aspect of a being. anything can be hidden or 'jinn.'
-
I prefer to leave it as untranslated. Not every single thing has to be translated. Are proper names translated? Do we translated Muhammad as "praised" ?
I think we sometimes tend to underestimate readers' intelligence. The Quran is a dynamic book, whose very structure invites study and critical thought. Why not give readers the opportunity to exercise that critical thought?
For example, by leaving it as jinn untranslated, perhaps a reader's interest will be piqued ("what does jinn mean?" and consequently go on the internet and ask around and maybe even start to think about the text critically as opposed to just a book of tales (which is what many people who are used to the bible and hadith think of it as).
Just a thought. Peace.
-
I voted to leave it as is. For the same reasons as in Cavey's post.
-
peace Cave doc,
I prefer to leave it as untranslated. Not every single thing has to be translated. Are proper names translated? Do we translated Muhammad as "praised" ?
yes! or some other word. why not? the names serve a purpose, by leaving them untranslated, we are taking them out of the message, giving the readers just people with random names.
If you've read a novel, the names all mean something. They all describe the character or his/her situation. Names do serve a purpose in the story.I think we sometimes tend to underestimate readers' intelligence. The Quran is a dynamic book, whose very structure invites study and critical thought. Why not give readers the opportunity to exercise that critical thought?
there is a difference between trusting the intelligence of people and tricking them. You are tricking them by not giving them the whole translation. I don't doubt that some will research the topic but they will encounter the actual translation somewhere. So why not give it to them right from the start? why complicate the process? why make the readers more vulnarable to baseless interpretations?
For example, by leaving it as jinn untranslated, perhaps a reader's interest will be piqued ("what does jinn mean?" and consequently go on the internet and ask around and maybe even start to think about the text critically as opposed to just a book of tales (which is what many people who are used to the bible and hadith think of it as).
Again, translating the words only makes it easier for the reader to see the whole message. And recognize the allegories and the metaphors. People who want to learn what Jinn truly is will come accross the translation some time or another, why not just give it to them in the book where it belongs?
The quran is a book of tales, but all those tales have a meaning that teaches us important lessons. -
Peace CD, SC, all,
I prefer to leave it as untranslated. Not every single thing has to be translated. Are proper names translated? Do we translated Muhammad as "praised" ?
The word "jinn" is not a proper name (a label that is irrelevant and meaningless). It is a common noun.
I think we sometimes tend to underestimate readers' intelligence. The Quran is a dynamic book, whose very structure invites study and critical thought. Why not give readers the opportunity to exercise that critical thought?
Actually not translating a common noun means that we are insulting the intelligence of the reader. It is the same exact thing that the media here in the US does when they insult the intelligence of the reader by not translating Arabic common nouns such as "jihad". Of course, translating it as "strive" would make the news more dull and mundane because there is nothing wrong with "striving" in the minds of the audience and indeed it carries a positive connotation in English as opposed to the meaningless label.
For example, by leaving it as jinn untranslated, perhaps a reader's interest will be piqued ("what does jinn mean?" and consequently go on the internet and ask around and maybe even start to think about the text critically as opposed to just a book of tales (which is what many people who are used to the bible and hadith think of it as).
If you leave it untranslated it is fine as long as a note in braquets is put to indicate that it is not a proper name and should be translated but the translator doesn't know how to translate it. As you remarked, this will tell the reader that there is more research to be done. Translating it forces the translator and the reader to improve their understanding because if it is translated as X and this X doesn't fit well in some of the occurences then this will signal that we need a better meaning.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace phoenix
yes! or some other word. why not? the names serve a purpose, by leaving them untranslated, we are taking them out of the message, giving the readers just people with random names.
If you've read a novel, the names all mean something. They all describe the character or his/her situation. Names do serve a purpose in the story.I gave the example of a name to show that certain things are normally not translated in the Qur'an. Not every single word in a translation is an originally English word.
there is a difference between trusting the intelligence of people and tricking them. You are tricking them by not giving them the whole translation. I don't doubt that some will research the topic but they will encounter the actual translation somewhere. So why not give it to them right from the start? why complicate the process? why make the readers more vulnarable to baseless interpretations?
I simply fail to see how leaving something in the original God-inspired Arabic is "tricking" someone. How is that trickery? And your point, I think, reinforces my point. Suppose someone does research and encounters an actual translation. I don't see how that is pointless. There is value in the process of realization itself; the answer is not the only thing that is important. I think your assumption is that the journey towards the truth itself isnt valuable; I disagree.
Again, translating the words only makes it easier for the reader to see the whole message. And recognize the allegories and the metaphors. People who want to learn what Jinn truly is will come accross the translation some time or another, why not just give it to them in the book where it belongs?
The quran is a book of tales, but all those tales have a meaning that teaches us important lessons.I guess this goes at the very heart of the purpose of translating things. As I see it, translators of texts typically balance and weigh 3 factors 1) ease of language, accessibility, 2) accuracy, and 3) eloquence. Some translations are strong in some areas while weak in others (e.g. Khalifa may be more easy to understand, but is glaringly inaccurate at times) whereas Yusufali might be strongest in eloquence with its Old English style.
You seem to favor ease of reading. I understand that. That certainly plays a huge part. I, on the other hand, value accuracy over other factors. I say this because I am willing to go a translation that maybe is more dense or hard to understand but that compensates by giving a more accurate, fuller picture. In this case, when we have thread upon thread about what "jinn" means, why risk inaccuracy by restricting to one meaning? Leaving it untranslated may very well be the most "accurate" thing we can do at this point.
-
Peace ayman
Peace CD, SC, all,
The word "jinn" is not a proper name (a label that is irrelevant and meaningless). It is a common noun.
I never said "jinn" was a proper name or a label. I simply used the example of Muhammad to show that certain words are, without controversy, left untranslated. E.g. proper names. I didn't mean to imply "jinn" was a proper name or a label; I apologize if it came across that way.
Actually not translating a common noun means that we are insulting the intelligence of the reader. It is the same exact thing that the media here in the US does when they insult the intelligence of the reader by not translating Arabic common nouns such as "jihad". Of course, translating it as "strive" would make the news more dull and mundane because there is nothing wrong with "striving" in the minds of the audience and indeed it carries a positive connotation in English as opposed to the meaningless label.
The jihad example is a good, but not fully accurate, one. From what I can glean, "jihad" can quite easily be translated as "strive" in every relevant occurence in the Qur'an. "Jinn," unless I'm missing something, isn't quite the same. Some think its a separate race of beings (I don't really align myself with such a belief), while some say its a description.
If you leave it untranslated it is fine as long as a note in braquets is put to indicate that it is not a proper name and should be translated but the translator doesn't know how to translate it. As you remarked, this will tell the reader that there is more research to be done. Translating it forces the translator and the reader to improve their understanding because if it is translated as X and this X doesn't fit well in some of the occurences then this will signal that we need a better meaning.
Peace,
Ayman
I actually agree with this. Leaving it untranslated with an attached bracket/footnote is ideal, imo. This way, the meaning is not restricted to the particular belief of the translator, and at the same time the reader is signaled that research needs to be done. To my mind, this would accomplish two things 1) it shows the reader that the translator is painfully honest and went to great lengths to leave the text as unfettered by his own personal preconceptions as possible, and 2) it shows the reader that the Qur'an is not some historical statute-book, chained to conceptions of the past, but rather is a dynamic force that consists of layer upon layer of information, a text that literally engages the reader and, through its very structure, lends itself to critical study and logical analysis.
Peace.
-
Salaam all,
I actually agree with this. Leaving it untranslated with an attached bracket/footnote is ideal, imo.
Perhaps the footnote can be converted into some kind of section in the introductory chapter of The Message; that way, not every occurence of "jinn" needs a bracket or a footnote. Besides, the book will include an index section like the previous edition, will it not? Readers can just consult them to find all occurences of the word "jinn" and, by combining a little information from the introductory section, may conclude on her/his own.
Just a suggestion.
=adley=
-
Peace,
I agree with the suggestions Caveman, bro Ayman and Adley gave. About the footnotes and maybe having a section as opposed to a bracket everywhere. It makes sense to me.
-
Jinn means hiden
Jinn means crazy.Jinn is not metaphisic or not visible creature but men qualifies
- Being high intelectuality (above 120)
- Having crazy idea
3, Closed, private.
They may be
- Men who lead nation with their own principles (thoghut/satan)
- Men who lead people by Allah's order (prophets).
- Scientist.
-
Peace,
Just to clarify this issue for which soem discussion has taken place.
My personal preference is for
energy beingsas I understand Jinn to be real entities that share the Earth with mankind but were created much earlier from flames/fire.- Jinn are decendats of Satan (727)
- Jinn we are told are good & bad (7211)
- Jinn possess power/ability to exit the atmosphere of Earth (72
- Jinn have human features such as hearts, eyes, ears (7179)
- Jinn have physical powers not common to humans (2739)
I disagree about your erroneous conclusion about 'jinn' being able "to exit the atmosphere of Earth".
Look at
376 We have adorned the lowest heaven with adorning planets.*
377 We guarded it from every evil devil.
378 They cannot spy on the High Society; they get bombarded from every side.
379 They have been condemned; they have incurred an eternal retribution.
3710 If any of them ventures to charge the outer limits, he gets struck with a fierce projectile.and...
5533 O you jinns and humans, if you can penetrate the outer limits of the heavens and the earth, go ahead and penetrate. You cannot penetrate without authorization.
5534 Which of your Lord's marvels can you deny?
5535 You get bombarded with projectiles of fire and metal, and you cannot win.Notice that jinn and humans are mentioned together. The challenge is to penetrate the heavens - ie. leave the Earth's atmosphere which cannot be done. "Jinn" are human or an aspect of humans and the usages within the reading must be contextual; there doesn't seem to be a one meaning fits all for this particular concept.
Peace.
-
perhaps translating it as the same thing in every occurrence is one of the problems.
just a thought.
also, has anyone actually written an article on the occurrences of jinn and extracted all the additional information that comes with the occurrences? that would be handy.
-
Salaam,
This is a list I compiled a while ago regarding Jim-Nun-Nun. So it's not all about "jinn" but "jannah" as well. I gotta go now. Perhaps I can clear it up after I get back.
ajinnatun -- 5332
aljinna / aljinni -- 6100,128,130; 738,179; 1850; 2717,39; 3412,14,41; 4125,29; 4618,29; 5156; 5533; 721,6
aljannatayni -- 1833; 5554
bijannatayhim -- 3416
bimajnuunin -- 682; 8122
jannun -- 2710; 2831; 5539,56,74
jannaatin -- 225; 315,195,198; 413,57,122; 512,65,85,119; 6141; 972,89,100; 109; 1323; 1423; 1545; 1631; 1831,107; 1961; 2076; 2214,23,56; 2319; 2510; 2657,147; 318; 3219; 3533; 3634; 3743; 3850; 408; 4425,52; 4712; 485,17; 509; 5115; 5217; 5454; 5612; 5712; 5822; 6112(2x); 649; 6511; 668; 6834; 7035; 7112; 7440; 8511; 988
jannatin / jannatun -- 2265,266; 7184; 1791; 2325,70; 258,15; 2685; 348,46; 5315; 5816; 632; 6922; 7038; 7612; 8810
jannataani -- 3415; 5546,62
jannataka -- 1839,40
jannatahu -- 1835
jannatii -- 8930
jannatayni -- 1832; 3416
janiyyan -- 1925
lamajnuunun -- 156; 2627; 6851
majnuunin -- 3736; 4414; 5139,52; 5229; 549
waljanna -- 1527
waljinni / waljinnu -- 6112; 1788; 725
wajanaa -- 5554
Take care.
=adley=
-
Jinn means hiden
Jinn means crazy.Jinn is not metaphisic or not visible creature but men qualifies
- Being high intelectuality (above 120)
- Having crazy idea
3, Closed, private.
They may be
- Men who lead nation with their own principles (thoghut/satan)
- Men who lead people by Allah's order (prophets).
- Scientist.
I second this Br's.
God Bless all.
-
Peace Layth, all,
I voted to keep jinn untranslated, mostly because no definition offered by anyone thus far makes a perfect fit in every instance.
For example, those who think of jinn as invisible beings only, or emotions only, would have trouble explaining these occurrences
6100 And they made partners with God from among the Jinn, while He had created them. And they invented for Him sons and daughters without them having any knowledge! Be He glorified and far above what they describe.
"From among the jinn" confirms in certainty that one or more jinn were worshipped as partners with God. Yet we have no trace of evidence that determines who these people were nor what jinn they worshipped.
6128 And the Day we gather them all ?O tribes of Jinn, you have managed to take many humans.? Their supporters from the humans said ?Our Lord, we have indeed enjoyed one another, and we have reached our destiny to which You delayed us.? He said ?The Fire is your dwelling, in it you shall abide eternally, except as your Lord wishes.? Your Lord is Wise, Knowledgeable.
What does this mean? That these invisible beings possessed people? That they killed people? That they deceived them?
In both instances, a "hidden" entity fits better, imo, then an invisible creature.
In 6100, this hidden entity could be anything from the forces of nature to ego. It does not fit, however, to conclude an invisible being is described because that would entail a human having some sort of contact with, and understanding of, this being.In 6128, the "jinn" being talked about must be a secluded group of people, because in 6130, here is what we are told Yes, we bear witness upon ourselves;" and the worldly life deceived them, and they bore witness on themselves that they were rejecters.
If these were invisible beings, what would the worldly life have to do with them? Also, if they were emotions, how could they be deceived by the wordly life?
2710 And throw down your staff.? So when he saw it vibrate as if it were a Jinn, he ran away and would not turn back. ?O Moses, do not fear, for My messengers shall have no fear from Me.?
Neither belief fits this context. Invisible beings don't vibrate visibly, nor do emotions.
Interestingly, this is how QXP exposits 2710...
'kaannaha jann' = as if it was a dragon, concerning the 'asa' or staff in (2710). Additional Tasreef (710, (2017-24), (2610-15), (2632-33), (2831-32)).
Now see the same story told in 2020
2020 So he cast it down, and it became a moving serpent!
So, in 2710 it was a "jinn" or dragon, and in 2020 it was a "haya" or snake.
Dragon= hidden mythical creature
Snake= hidden reptileConclusion jinn = "hidden" and can only be qualified by the context.
Peace,
Tay -
peace Tay, all
so why not just translat "jinn" as "hidden?" and leave it at that?
As salamu alaykum.
Respectfully.Yeah, i mean, Jinn are hidden because they live in theri own sphere.
We know of them what is written in the Qur'an and that is that.As salamu alaykum.
