The Sufi (mystical) experience is characterized by a constant quest for the divine secrets in the universe: the mysteries of life and death, soul and spirit, and the mind and the heart. This experience varies from one ʿĀrif (Gnostic, Sufi Knower) to another according to the relevant pattern of connection between the individual self (al-̱dāt al-fardiyya) of the Sufi and the global self of the supreme monism (al-ḏāt al-kulliyya li al-’uḥadiyya al-ʿulyā). It is clear that the universe or existence itself provide innumerable symbols and unfathomable signs. It is not surprising then that the Sufi discourse is founded on the ‘symbol’, which is a problematic word whose meaning is hidden in common speech and is, therefore, only grasped by the Sufis. Synonymous with a sign, whose meaning is hidden from a speaker because it is so subtle, it is also synonymous with a ‘hint’. Symbolism has spread through Sufi poetic and prose writings because it was needed. The Sufi express meanings and psychological sensations which are not within the expressive capacity of language. They long to transfer their experience, but this experience can only be expressed by using a set of symbols that hint but lack clarity. In this article we address the symbols employed by the Sufis to express their thoughts in translating the set of facts and secrets that Allah revealed to them after a long struggle. We formulate the problematics of this research as follows: How was it possible for the people of the Sufi Order to resort to symbolism, which usually indicates ambiguity and secretiveness, in coining terms to name the concepts and ideas that are inspired to them or that penetrate their inner souls? In this regard, we raise the following questions: Is the symbol a sign? a term? a word? an icon? a signal? a subtlety? a fragment (šaḏara)? a piece of wisdom (ḥikma)? a proverb? a metaphor? or a case of polysemy? Or is it all of this at the same time? What criteria enable Sufi words to contain both symbolic and terminological dimensions? What is the role of context (or pragmatic field) in identifying the essence of the Sufi symbol? How can we uncover the nucleus of the symbol from its external shell? How can we unveil the essence of symbols? What is the best approach to study symbols? Can we reduce symbols to semantic features following Rastier (1987), to highlight their essential meaning and extract their original nucleus? Or is this deconstructive approach useless in our treatment of the multifaceted symbol? We will consider orientalist approaches (through Louis Massignon’s model) in the study of Sufi terminological systems by identifying their links with Islamic and gnostic origins and considering their modes of transfer into Western languages.

Standardization is a polysemous term. It refers at the same time to the standardization of terms used in scientific and technical fields as well as the process of elaborating standards (or norms) in industry and other economic sectors. In fact, most people immediately think about ISO standards when they hear the term standardization. However, an encyclopedia devoted to scientific, legal, Sufi and technical terminology aims primarily to standardize terms, and this is the focus of the present paper. Whether standardizing terminology itself or standardizing the principles and techniques of managing terminology the ultimate goal of the process is always quality control and assurance. In the Arab World, the standardization of the terminology belonging to a particular subject field, be it a science (such as chemistry, linguistics and physics), art (such as painting), doctrine (such as Marxism) or vocation (such air-traffic and agriculture), attracts more attention than the standardization of terminological principles and techniques or the elaboration of industrial standards. Indeed, whether in language academies, specialized periodicals or in conferences organized by language academies, the Bureau for the Coordination of arabization in the Arab World (BCAAW) or by universities, the terminological issues and problems in the Arab world are greatly discussed. This article discusses standardization particularly with respect to the Arab World and examines its motivations, core principles, and problems. It also outlines the various attempts that both specialized institutions and individuals have made to standardize Arabic terms (e.g. Lakhdar Ghazal 1977; Hamzaoui 1986a; Heliel 1987 and Darir 2004). The aim is to suggest guidelines that, with further elaboration, could serve as a comprehensive model for the standardization of terms not only in Arabic but also in other languages.