One of the interesting things about "narratives" (broadly construed) is that they are highly flexible and polysemic (a nice academic bafflegab word that mean "carry or imply multiple meanings"). Not only that, but they can shift "levels" of meaning easily and, often, invert specific meanings at "higher" levels. This is certainly one of the things that AQ does quite well - change levels and adapt the story to meet current needs.


Cracking the AQ narrative, in the sense of blowing up the acceptability of its symbolic linkages, is an interesting "exercise", although most of the attempts I've seen so far are totally pathetic (sorry, but that's the only word for them). "Logic" is a useless way to go about it since most of the logic used is not the logic that structures the narrative (actually, acts as its "ground of being"). You have to crack it using that "ground of being" logic and then "gel" the new "understanding" based on a logic and interpretation that emerges from the narratives "ground of being". This is what the de-radicalization programs are doing in many places.

Abu, I really want to see your book ! You, I expect to get it right !

Marc