The Sharing Group Discussion on “Liberal” Islam

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Brother James Harris posted this, on The Sharing Group, on the 25^th December 2015: “I have seen, on a number of occasions, warnings about ‘liberal Islam’, which is apparently a view of Islam which is anti-traditional.  However, I am not clear as to what liberal Islam is, its principles, or in what way it contradicts ‘traditional Islam’.  What is liberal Islam, and in what way is it incompatible with a traditional understanding of Islam?” 

Brother Billy Johnston: It probably is not clear, as what is considered “liberal” Islam today is probably much closer to the “traditional” Islam of the Prophet (s.a.w.). 

Brother William Voller: Sounds a bit like another label used derogatorily so challenges raised to some person’s own opinion can casually be cast aside without being engaged with, so essentially, it is subjective, which is why it is unclear. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: This is the current bogeyman of Malaysia and Indonesia.  Essentially, it is a name for some reformist ideas lumped together with anything that challenges the status quo. 

Brother James Harris: It would be helpful if somebody could outline the main criticisms of liberal Islam here. 

Brother Abdul-Halim Vazquez: Good question.  I do not know if this will be useful, but I recently saw on someone’s feed this article about “Traditionalism”.  It relates more to earlier discussions we had about Traditionalism and Perennialism, Shaykh Siraj ad-Din Abu Bakr Martin Lings (q.s.) and Dr. Sayyid Husayn Naswr.  The article provides one way to think about some of these issues: “Why I am Not a Traditionalist” by Dr. Muhammad Gary Carl Legenhausen.  Also, “traditionalism” is a bit different from “Traditionalism”. 

Is “liberal” Islam a well-defined ideology or is it just a tendency towards permissiveness, treating things as halal when they are actually haram, or treating things is optional when they are actually obligatory? 

Brother Faris Abdat: First, in the context of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, the term Liberal Islam denotes a movement which believes that Islam need to be reformed in order to suit modern times.  Some examples include saying that Muslims should not believe that Islam is the only truth - to believe that is to be arrogant; that Muslim women should have the right to marry non-Muslim men without the latter converting to Islam; and that homosexuality is actually not against Islam.  In Indonesia, one of the well-known groups is JIL or Jaringan Liberal Islam, which is headed by Ustadz Ulil Abshar ‘Abdullah. 

Secondly, therefore in the context of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, Liberal Islam does not denote simply having different opinions in religious matters, but rather, for having opinions which are clearly out of Islam.  One of the Indonesian Liberal Islam proponent named Zuhayri Misrawi claimed that the five obligatory swalah are indeed not obligatory. 

Thirdly, it is not a bogeyman.  It exists, and it is a serious matter for the ummah on this side of the world. 

Brother Jon Beatty: If you look at the statements of groups like Muslims for Progressive Values, they give a good indication.  Some of them permit things like homosexuality - its acts and related relationships, drinking alcohol, and so forth.  One of their big leaders, here, conducts gay “nikah” ceremonies and is openly homosexual.  Basically, they are self-interpreters of text, generally reject ahadits and claim that Qur’an interpretation by the scholars is erroneous and done purely in cultural context.  Some of them get quite extreme and claim all the interpretations and understanding of our texts is a 1,400-year-old conspiracy and how we need to reform and adapt to modern times by accepting homosexuality as a permitted practice. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: I do not believe that only Muslims are admitted to Heaven.  I have never believed that.  I am not sure if that is the same as believing that Islam is the only truth.  But metaphysically, Truth is beyond labels. 

I also believe that the ‘aqidah does not change, but the fiqh changes with the times.  Those were the words of Shaykh Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad ibn Muhammad at-Tijani (q.s.).  Shaykh Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad ibn Muhammad at-Tijani (q.s.) also mentioned that fiqh has a makan and a zaman.  That is not “Liberal” Islam; that is fiqh. 

Brother Jon Beatty: Many of them are just secular humanists who use the title “Muslim” as some kind of liberal rebellion.  The issue with them is they do reject ‘aqidah and clear proofs in order to serve their positions.  They are the type that claim they are intelligent enough to interpret everything for themselves, and they do not need the “scholars” to interpret or break things down for them. 

Brother Faris Abdat: In Indonesia, the Liberal Islam camp actually argue that Sayyidina Abu ‘Amr ‘Utsman ibn ‘Affan (r.a.) had acted treacherously in his compilation of the Qur’an.  By rejecting all the other versions existing at that time, Sayyidina ‘Utsman (r.a.) supposedly secured the Quraysh’s hold on power. 

Brother Jon Beatty: I cannot speak for who they are in Indonesia or Malaysia.  I can only explain how they are here and what they try to accomplish here. 

Brother Abdul-Halim Vazquez: If it is MPV, they seem to be all the way at one extreme end of the continuum.  Anybody who says they are Muslim is Muslim.  They could be atheists; it does not matter. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother Terence, the Liberal Islam movement is very organised in Indonesia so no, it is not the “name for some reformist ideas lumped together with anything that challenges the status quo.”  And their idea of reform is essentially making halal what is haram, and vice versa. 

Brother Colin Turner: “Liberal” Islam is personal, private, inclusive, anti-hudud, gay-friendly, “progressive”, feminist, supportive of liberal secular democracy, “rational”, and so forth … 

Brother Jon Beatty: Brother, if they make it clear that they reject the sunnah outright and even in some cases reject clear proof from the Qur’an that would be kufr al-bawwah. 

Brother Faris Abdat: The Ahmadiyyah and Qadiyaniyyah say they are Muslims.  The world’s eminent scholars of Islam disagree. 

Brother Colin, you are spot on, except here, in South-East Asia, where I am as, well as Brother Terence, they are not personal nor private.  They are very intent in spreading their ideas.  The JIL of Indonesia operates freely from their secretariat at Utan Kayu, Jakarta, and they have infiltrated many of the Universitas Islam Negeri, State Islamic Universities, across Indonesia.  These are all well-documented.  They have websites, radio programmes, and they publish books. 

Brother Jon Beatty: They are quite vocal in the USA, as well. 

Brother Abdul-Halim Vazquez: So, in Southeast Asia, we are talking about a very specific organisation? 

Brother James Harris: So basically, it is anything we want it to be. 

Brother Faris Abdat: I believe they were all connected somehow.  The late Nurcholish Majid - one of the imminent Liberal Islam proponents - was co-opted [ for the lack of a better word ] to this ideology during his study at McGill University. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: The question is, are they the same as the ones in Southeast Asia? 

Brother Jon Beatty: They really do not have any rules, Brother James Harris, at least from what I have encountered of them, everything is okay, because God still loves me type mentality.  I really do not know, Brother Terence, I am not familiar enough with the Muslim groups in Southeast Asia to say, for certain. 

Brother James Harris: This could be used to describe any kind of reformist. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother Abdul-Halim Vazquez, in Indonesia we are talking about a movement consisting of well-named organisations working together.  JIL is one of them.  Others include Paramadina, and the Indonesian Conference on Religion and Peace. 

Brother James Harris: How is it different from tajdid? 

Brother Abdul-Halim Vazquez: Maybe, it would be more productive to define what traditional Islam is? 

Brother Faris Abdat: I think it is good when we talk about Liberal Islam, we define about who or what organisations we are talking about.  I use the term Liberal Islam to identify those in Southeast Asia, because this is the term they use to identify themselves. 

Brother Billy Johnston: There are some out there, perhaps looking to justify their sins religiously.  That is the other extreme.  But something is to be said for those who wish to see greater balance.  We live in times when religious law needs greater balance with the spirit of the law, which is equally important but too often forgotten by many Muslims in contemporary times who consider themselves “traditionalist” though in reality they are imbalanced.  I believe those who are labelled “liberal” consist of those who wish for a return to balance. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: I should clarify, as I have mentioned before, our ‘aqidah is established.  That does not change.  And anything that is contrary to it is problematic.  But my discomfort here is that in Malaysia especially, the tag “Liberal Muslim” is very nebulous.  It has been used as a political tool to tar everyone who seems against the regime.  By their broad definition, I am a “liberal” Muslim.  It seems to me less like a defined movement as opposed to small groups of people with similar agendas who may or may not adhere to the same congruent ideology. 

Brother James Harris: So, who is standing against this liberal Islam movement in Indonesia, Brother Faris? 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother James Harris:, tajdid is supposed to bring one closer to Islam.  The tajdid as propagated by the Southeast Asian Liberal Islam camp take one away from Islam.  As I have mentioned earlier, they question even the validity of swalah.  What kind of tajdid that?  Is that the kind of tajdid which Islam teaches? 

Brother James Harris: If they question the validity of swalah, how can they be any threat to Islam?  That sounds like a storm in a teacup.  Prayer is one of the five pillars of Islam, and without that there is nothing to teach. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis, just because UMNO / BN uses that term to tar its opponents, does not mean it exists only in that context.  UMNO / BN uses Islam for political gains - when it suits it, it will say it champion Islam, but when it is politically expedient, it will say no to Islam. 

Brother James Harris, plenty.  Adian Husayni is one of the foremost opponents of the Liberal Islam camp.  Essentially, all the mainstream Muslim organisations in Indonesia are against it.  There is a popular movement in Indonesia called “Indonesia tanpa JIL” or “Indonesia without JIL”.  It might seem ridiculous to both you and me that a movement such as Liberal Islam can curry much influence, but it does have its supporters and followers.  In matters of ‘aqidah, nothing is a storm in a teacup.  The Liberal Islam movement in Indonesia is extremely vocal. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: It is precisely because UMNO uses that term that I am very suspicious.  Perkosa mentioned that those who questioned Malay rights are “Liberal” Muslims.  Since when did Malay privilege become part of the ‘aqidah?  Of course, there are groups and individuals who have some ideas that go against the grain, but they are never going to gain enough power, or following to effect change unless people give them that by creating a bogeyman that takes on a life on its own.  Is that not how al-Qa’idah formed? 

Just as UMNO is shaky, we suddenly have a “Liberal” Islam problem.  I am very suspicious.  The same it is with Indonesia.  The Malays are prone to hysteria and hyperbole.  They gave “amok” to the English language. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis, we have this Liberal Islam movement long.  In Indonesia, the movement already started in the 1970s with the likes of Harun Nasution, another alumnus of McGill University.  In Malaysia, the Sisters of Islam was started by Amina Wadud.  Just because you just recently became aware of it, does not mean it is new. 

Brother James Harris: Looking at the growth of hardline Islamic movements in Indonesia, it is probably understandable that there would be a swing the other way.  I am a strong believer in freedom of expression, and the fact there is a movement called “Indonesia tanpa JIL” sounds worrying.  Movements with such names in the 1960s ended up slaughtering large sections of the Indonesian population. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: It is a storm in a tea cup.  I may not agree with Sisters in Islam, but they are hardly worse than Perkosa.  They are the lesser evil.  I saw on the timeline of one of our local asatidzah.  He would happily criticise “Liberal” Islam, but he has a post by a Wahhabi, and someone previously given a warning by ISD for his activities, on his Wall.  So, someone who supports ISIS is not as bad as these “Liberal” Muslims? 

Brother Faris Abdat: We may think of Indonesians as uneducated peasants but they are actually very intelligent. Public discourses are common.  Criticisms of the government are open. People speak freely and think freely.  Where I live, we get Indonesian channels.  I watch their shows and programmes, their debates.  The movement, Indonesia tanpa JIL has existed for quite some time and they are fighting against Liberal Islam with facts. 

Brother James Harris: Do not play the racism card with me. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis, your opinion and I respect that.  How can Sisters of Islam which seeks to dilute our understanding of Islam be worse than Perkasa which is out and out a nationalist organisation?  ISIS is bad, and Liberal Islam is bad - both bad in their own ways. So what's the problem here? 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Perkosa are equating Malay rights with ‘aqidah.  That is also shirk.  And, they are advocating violence against non-Malays and non-Muslims.  They are the Malaysian equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazis. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis, and Sisters of Islam which rejects hudud is not committing kufr?  Both Perkasa and Sisters of Islam are deplorable.  Is rejecting one means one accepts the other? 

Brother James Harris: Rejecting hudud punishment is kufr?  Where did you learn this? 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother James Harris, forgive me but that's not my intent.  I am simply sharing with you how the Indonesians actually are. 

Brother Jon Beatty: Rejecting hudud would be an issue of fiqh, not ‘aqidah. 

Brother James Harris: Exactly, Brother Jon. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother James Harris, because it is the Qur’an.  Is not rejecting hudud the same as rejecting swalah? 

Brother Jon Beatty: Nope.  Hudud is a fixed determination in fiqh, rejecting swalah would be rejecting an act of ‘ibadah, and a pillar which would be kufr. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: The worst of the “Liberal” Muslims are still the lesser evil compared to groups like Perkosa and the Wahhabis.  I find it distasteful that people would ally themselves with the Wahhabis against “Liberal” Muslims, not to mention that it is downright dangerous.  By the standards of the Wahhabi sect, we are all “Liberal” Muslims.  Where will they stop?  How many Kristallnachts must we have before we learn our lesson?  Rejecting hudud is not an issue of ‘aqidah.  It is an issue of fiqh.  The hudud is an option.  It is not wajib.  There are valid opinions within traditional Islam.  This sudden rise in intolerance under the guise of “defending” Islam is troubling and a precursor to greater oppression if we do not nip it in the bud.  It is a bandwagon, and people are gleefully jumping on it without considering the consequences.  This has become a Warhammer game of Purge the Heretic, and if we are not careful, we will all become somebody’s “heretic”. 

Brother James Harris: No, it is not, Brother Faris.  This is a basic issue.  Swalah is fardh.  Executing someone is not. 

Brother Faris Abdat: I must clarify that when I say rejecting hudud, I mean those who reject it because they believe that it is backward, unnecessary.  Where I come from, that constitutes kufr. 

Brother James Harris: I can disagree with someone without starting a movement calling for their removal from the country.  This is just fascism to me.  If I disagree, then I present my arguments. 

Brother Jon Beatty: Rejecting hudud again is an issue of fiqh not ‘aqidah, disagreeing with a legal position is not kufr. 

Brother James Harris: Hurting somebody’s feelings is not kufr.  If someone says your position is backward, that should not be a consideration. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother James Harris, firstly, the movement, “Indonesia tanpa JIL”, is not about actually removing anyone from the country.  Secondly, I did write that they are fighting JIL with facts. 

Brother James Harris: “Indonesia tanpa JIL” means “Indonesia without JIL”. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother Jon Beatty, Sisters of Islam is not merely disagreeing about how hudud should be implemented.  They are saying that the laws are wrong. 

Brother Abdul-Halim Vazquez: Are not there different kinds of “rejecting”?  I mean, not carrying out a hudud punishment or having a particular understanding of its conditions is a fiqh issue, but categorically rejecting them as barbaric seems to imply something insulting to Allah (s.w.t.), no? 

Brother James Harris: It is a fiqh issue, Brother Abdul-Halim.  There is room for disagreement. 

Brother Faris, within the context of fiqh, there are many muftiyyun that say an opinion is wrong that does not constitute kufr, for kufr to be present there has to be a clear indication that they are rejecting sound beliefs not legal consequences. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother James Harris, yes, it does, but it does not mean they want to kick out members of the JIL out of the country.  They are using solid facts. 

Brother Jon Beatty: That is why, in fiqh, we have ikhtilaf, and we do not have the same in ‘aqidah. 

Brother James Harris: If somebody started a movement called “Britain without Islam”, I would be worried. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother Jon Beatty, here where I am, many scholars are of the opinion that rejecting hudud constitutes kufr because it means rejecting what Allah (s.w.t.) has Mandated. 

Brother James Harris, that is why in my earlier post, I share with you what I know of Indonesians.  I know plenty of non-Indonesians who have an unclear picture of who they are.  Again, as I have said, they are fighting with facts. 

Brother Jon Beatty: Brother Faris, what one group of scholars hold in a particular part of the world is of no concern to me, I go by the interpretation based on ijma’, hudud is not mandated by Allah (s.w.t.); hudud is based on opinions derived from the scholars, and how they have interpreted over the years.  That does not mean they reject Allah (s.w.t.) when they disagree with hudud it means they disagree with an aspect of fiqh.  What is hudud for one group may not be hudud for another.  That is why nothing is truly hudud across the board. 

Brother James Harris: Okay.  Thanks for this.  Please note that I know Indonesia well.  I lived there for a long time, and I speak Bahasa Indonesia. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother Jon Beatty, are you referring to ta’zir?  I am not.  I am talking about the specific punishments Mentioned in the Qur’an, such for stealing, zina. 

Brother Jon Beatty: Stealing has differing punishments in Qur’an and in the sunnah.  Same with zina, it is situational, not hudud. 

Brother James Harris: Accusations of kufr should not come into a discussion on capital or corporal punishment. 

Brother Jon Beatty: If you want a Shafi’i text to refer to on stealing look at the sharh of Matn Abu Shuja’, he stipulates a punishment on stealing if it meets a certain worth.  The Quran does not illustrate that. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother James Harris, ah, what do you know?  Then you should definitely search the things I mentioned. 

Brother James Harris: The problem is not “liberal” Islam or any other stream of thought; rather, it is the inability of people to tolerate views that differ from their own. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother Jon Beatty, I am aware about those aspects of hudud implementation.  Indeed, Sayyidina Abu Hafsw ‘Umar ibn al-Khaththab al-Faruq (r.a.) did suspend the implementation of hudud during a time of famine.  What I am saying is these people reject hudud not because they disagree with how it is implemented.  They reject it because they do not consider it worthy.  In other words, they are dismissing hudud.  In my part of the world, this is considered an act of kufr. 

Brother Jon Beatty: Your part of the world does not mean it is an official understanding on hudud, saying something is kufr is universal.  It is not based on part of the world, and making these claims is inherently dangerous, disbelief is not based on geography or ‘urf, it is based upon rejection of sound beliefs not rejection of opinions in fiqh. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Brother James Harris, Liberal Islam is not just about having different opinions.  It is about having opinions which clearly contradict Islam, such as allowing homosexuality, and so forth. 

Brother Jon Beatty, I agree.  Perhaps, I am not communicating it right.  Rejecting hudud is a big issue in Malaysia with both the government, and the Liberal Islam camp on the same side.  The popular opinion among the various scholars of Islam in Malaysia is that rejecting hudud, in the way they reject it in Malaysia, constitutes kufr. 

Brother Jon Beatty: From my understanding, many Malaysian scholars also follow the manhaj of the Wahabiyyah, and if that is the case, then, I would not listen to their opinions on anything.  I would tread lightly on saying something is kufr.  Again, what is hudud for one school may not be hudud for another, because of uswul al-fiqh, and muswthalah ahadits is different in each school. 

Brother James Harris: Yes, and anyone who has a different view is a kafir.  A classic example of the use of Islam to score political points.  They do the same thing in Pakistan. 

Sister Clara Arnold: I was called a liberal by a Wahhabi yesterday, because, apparently, I twist Islam, and follow my own desires.  What makes me a liberal is that I wear pants, and listen to music.  According to this same Wahhabi, scholars who do not have long beards and wear suits are also liberal.  Hamza Yusuf Hanson, according to her, is a liberal. 

Brother Faris Abdat: Most Malaysian scholars are not; they are Shafi’i.  Among those who say rejecting hudud constitutes kufr is Ustadz Azhar Aydarus, who is vehemently anti-Wahhabi. 

Brother Jon Beatty: I want to see the basis of that ruling, because the Shafi’i scholars that I know, do not make those claims 

Brother Faris Abdat: I take you do not understand Malay?  Okay, I will leave this video first, and I will try to get you the basis of this opinion, insha’Allah: Hukum Tolak & Persenda Hudud. 

Brother James Harris: Kufr is rejecting what has been made fardh.  The issue of hudud punishment has nothing to do with this. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: I disagree with a lot of things Azhar Aydarus says.  And, this is absolute nonsense.  Rejecting the hudud does not negate the shahadah.  Since when did an issue of fiqh become part of the ‘aqidah.  What is wrong with the Malaysian Muslims? 

Brother Faris Abdat: In an effort to further clarify my position, there is this verse: 

سُوۡرَةُ المَائدة

وَٱلسَّارِقُ وَٱلسَّارِقَةُ فَٱقۡطَعُوٓاْ أَيۡدِيَهُمَا جَزَآءَۢ بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَـٰلاً۬ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ‌ۗ وَٱللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ۬ (٣٨) 

As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a retribution for their deed, and exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom. (Surah al-Ma’idah:38) 

The Liberal Islam camp rejects this verse, all of it.  This is what is happening in Malaysia - not just disagreeing with how it should be implemented, or whether the current situation is correct for its implementation, but rather rejecting all of this verse as being barbaric, uncivilised, primitive, backward.  I hope I am clear this time. 

Brother Abdul-Halim Vazquez: Wait a minute.  What exactly are they saying when they “reject the hudud”? 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: We know the Qur’an.  But in fiqh, that does not mean we take every verse, and translate them into action without considering the context and the entire methodology of formulating and implementing a hukm.  That is not how our religion works.  If we can just do that, why do we need the various madzahib, and all the fuqaha?  Did we become Evangelical Christians in our approach? 

Brother Jon Beatty: Brother Faris, in Shafi’i fiqh, particularly in Matn Abu Shuja’, it states that the amputation punishment is applied after a certain weight worth of gold in value is stolen, the value is roughly US$70 in today’s market value, so no, that is not a hudud punishment.  Acceptance of hudud is not in any ‘aqidah text I have ever read; even the Wahabiyyah texts do not say such things. 

Brother William Voller: Generally, “liberal” often seems to be used when Muslims seem to conform or bend toward modern sensibilities.  Two things that always trouble me.  Is conforming automatically wrong, necessarily?  Okay, they might prove to be, but always by default, really?  The so-called traditional position is far more nuanced, and often this so-called liberal modern conformity is actually a previously discussed point which many ‘ulama held anyway.  As an example, female a’immah actually is not new, and absolutely prohibited by ijma’, as is claimed.  There may be some limitations, but even if we say, “No, it is not allowed,” the challenge arises well then why should males only lead prayer, and allows us to understand gender, the role of a’immah, and our religion better.  Too often, we get female a’immah is a liberal position, a sidestep, completely unhelpful, ignorant, fearful, and it all just festers on as groups become polarised. 

Brother Hamayoon Sultan Qurayshi: Wa ‘Alaykum as-Salaam.  It has been mentioned above, but liberal Islam is in the eye of the beholder; anyone who criticises extremism, or seeks to adapt to modern challenges, might be attacked as “liberal”.  But liberal does not necessarily mean permissive - the way the word is used in US politics is an interesting case study.  The Democrats are labelled “liberal”, but the positions of individual Democrats on certain issues beggar belief to anyone on the left of the political spectrum.  It is just a word.  Some claim the word, though often these people are often wholly unrepresentative in their positions. 

Brother James Harris: The situation in Malaysia sounds grim.  If dissenting opinions on Islamic law are labelled “kufr”, debate becomes an exercise in takfir. 

Brother Jan Ahmed: Is there a difference between liberal and progressive?  There is, in Christianity, and I am just wondering if these terms can be flushed out a bit. 

Brother Harry Elfrink: “Liberal”, to me, is a loaded word.  Everyone has their own definition of “liberal”.  “Liberal”, in this case, is a derogatory term.  It is problematic to place Islam on a right-left spectrum, as Islam completely predates the left-right paradigm, and the paradigm is a Revolutionary French invention.