The word jamʿah is also used for an assembly of people collected to decide a question of law or theology, the ijmāʿ being their decision, more frequently called ijmāʿu ʾl-ummah.
CONSCIENCE. There is no word in the Qurʾān which exactly expresses the Christian conception of conscience. The word nafs (نفس), which, according to Arabic lexicons, expresses very much the same idea as the Hebrew נֶפֶשׁ nephesh, “life, animal spirit, breath” ([Job xli. 21]), seems to be used in the Qurʾān to convey the meaning of conscience, although English translators render it “soul.” Muslim theologians say there are four kinds of consciences spoken of in the Qurʾān: (1) Nafs lawwāmah, the “self-accusing soul or conscience” ([Sūrah lxxv. 3]). (2) Nafs ammārah, the “soul or conscience prone to evil” ([Sūrah xii. 53]). (3) Nafs mut̤maʾinnah, the “peaceful soul or conscience” ([Sūrah lxxxix. 12]). (4) Nafs mulhammah, the “soul or conscience in which is breathed both bad and good” ([Sūrah lxxxiv. 27]).
It occurs also in the sense of conscience in the Traditions (Mishkāt, book i. ch. i. pt. 3): “When anything pricks your soul (nafs) forsake it.” ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq, in his Persian commentary on the Mishkāt, renders it by zāt, but the English word conscience would seem to express the precise idea. In Persian Muḥammadan works, as well as in common conversation, the word nafs is now used in its evil sense, of desire or passion, but it must be evident that this is not its Qurʾānic meaning. The word ذمة ẕimmah, which in later Arabic, together with ضمير ẓamīr, is used to express conscience, has in the only passage where it occurs in the Qurʾān a decidedly different meaning, e.g. [Sūrah ix. 8, 10], where it means clientship. Sale and Rodwell both translate it “faith,” but Palmer more accurately renders it “ties of clientship.”
CONVERSATION. The following instructions are given in the Qurʾān regarding talking and conversation. [Sūrah xxxi. 17], “Be moderate in thy walk, and lower thy voice; verily the most disagreeable of voices is the voice of asses.” [Sūrah ii. 77], “Speak to men kindly.” In the Traditions, Ibn Masʿūd relates that Muḥammad said, “May those people go to the fire of hell who speak much.”
On the subject of conversation, Faqīr Jani Muḥammad Asʿad, the author of the celebrated ethical work entitled the Ak͟hlāq-i-Jalālī, p. 288, says:—
“He should not talk much, for it is a sign of levity in feeling and weakness in judgment, and tends to lower him in point of consideration and position. We are told that the Prophet used to observe the strictest medium in his language; so much so, that, in the most protracted interviews, you might have counted the words he uttered. Buzurg Jamihr used to say, ‘When you see a person talking much without occasion, be sure he is out of his senses.’ Let him not give vent to expressions till he has determined in his own mind what he is going to say. When anyone is relating a story, however well known to the listener, the latter is not to intimate his acquaintance with it till the narrative is concluded. A question put to others he must not himself reply to; if put to a body of which he is a member, let him not prevent the others; and if another is engaged in answering what himself could answer better, let him keep silence till the other’s statement is completed, and then give his own, but in such sort as not to annoy the former speaker. Let him not commence his reply till the querist’s sentence is concluded. Conversations and discussions which do not concern him, although held in his presence, he is not to interfere in; and if people conceal what they are saying, he must not attempt furtively to overhear. To his elders he should speak with judgment, pitching his voice at a medium between high and low. Should any abstruse topic present itself, he should give it perspicuity by comparison. Prolixity he should never aim at, when not absolutely required; on the contrary, let it be his endeavour to compress all he has to say. Neither should he employ unusual terms or far-fetched figures. He should beware of obscenity and bad language; or if he must needs refer to an indecent subject, let him be content with allusion by metaphor. Of all things, let him keep clear of a taste for indelicacy, which tends to lower his breeding, degrade his respectability, and bring him into general disagreement and dislike. Let his language upon every occasion correspond with the exigency of his position; and if accompanied by gesticulation of the hand or eye or eyebrow, let it be only of that graceful sort which his situation calls for. Let him never, for right or wrong, engage in disputes with others of the company; least of all with the elders or the triflers of it: and when embarked in such dispute, let him be rigidly observant of the rules of candour.
“Let him not deal in profound observation beyond the intellect of those he is addressing, but adapt his discourse to the judgment of his hearers. Thus even the Prophet has declared—‘We of the prophetic order are enjoined to address men in the measure of their understandings’: and Jesus (blessed be he) said, ‘Use not wisdom with the unwise to their annoyance’ ([St. Matthew vii. 6]?). In all his conversation let him adhere to the ways of courtesy. Never let him mimic anyone’s gestures, actions, or words, nor give utterance to the language of menace.
“When addressing a great person, let him begin with something ominous of good, as the permanence of his fortune, felicity, and so forth.
“From all back-biting, carping, slander, and falsehood, whether heard or spoken, let him hold it essential to keep clear; nay, even from any partnership with those addicted to such practices. Let him listen more than he speaks. It was the answer of a wise man to those who asked him why he did so, ‘Because,’ said he, ‘God has given me two ears and only one tongue’; which was as much as to say, ‘Hear twice as much as you speak.’ ”
CONVERTS TO THE MUḤAMMADAN RELIGION. According to the author of the Hidāyah (vol. ii. 170), if a hostile infidel embrace Islām in a hostile country, his person is his own, and he is not made a slave, nor can his children be enslaved. His property is also his own. But it is not so in the case of one who has been first conquered and then embraces Islām, for his own person and his children become slaves, and his wives are at the mercy of the victorious Muslim, whilst his lands also become the property of the State.