So the book is primarily about the what I would call bottom-up violence, because obviously, violence can come in many different shapes. And I have to say that most violence actually comes by the states, which are always the most organized portion in the entire humanity. But I'm more interested like in understanding how come ordinary people take the mantle of natural law into the hands. And I think they're basically neighbors. So the term liminal came from my study of the years, the history. And it basically is not only about these disorders, it's basically about much like many other different groups. So the term itself is a Latin term, it comes from liman, it basically is like thresholds. But it kind of really symbolizes ambiguity in between us. And it has been used by some anthropologists over the 20th century. So the basic idea is that you're young boy, you need to go through certain rituals to become adults. And then that ritual stage that is called luminous, and then some of the people use in performance studies in theatres, in architecture. So I kind of really borrowed this term adapted to the social science. And what I say is that liminal is basically how I will describe the relationship groups of groups like is this with the domain majority and I primarily focus on the Muslim world, but the term can be applicable to other minorities. For example, I make the argument that it may capture the experience of Jehovah Witnesses in Christian worlds, probably the experience of the Mormons until the mid-20th century, not nowadays, I will not no longer called Mormons liminal, but I think there used to be a liminal minority. So then the question becomes, well, this is what I mean by liminal. So basically, there are two dimensions to this term. The first thing is that when we talk about interreligious relations, we basically say that Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and they made lots of tensions, they made lots of hostility. certainly, but at the same time, the representatives of those religions, you could plan each other as being proper religions. I mean, nobody's going to question if Judaism is a religion, nobody's going to question Islam is a religion, and so on. But when it comes to these groups, they're all these kind of questions about what they are basically. So it's the kind of uncertainty ambiguity. So there is no theological calculation of those religions by the domain majority. So sometimes they claim that there are some heretical sects, other times their basically saying that they're actually political movements, they're not physically having proper religiouns. So there's kind of this theological uncertainty characterizing their perception by the dominant majority. So this is the first dimension. The second dimension is that there's lots of stigmas. There's lots of epithets, in the sense that members of those religions are perceived to engage in certain practices, which are not proper from the eyes of the dominant majority, just to be specific, for many centuries. I mean, even nowadays, members of the Yezidi are called devil worshipers. And they can ask me, What is the reason for that? Well, because they really worship Peacock Angel. But then from the modern perspective, Peacock Angel is actually devil itself, the evilist. So there's this kind of confrontation that is basically confident false perception. But for generations, for many centuries, this perception become entrenched and that basically how many Muslim claims actually, personally, is this the basic claim that they are devil worshippers. And obviously, if you claim that these people are devil worshipers, you don't basically respect their religion, you don't basically give them dignity, um I mean, or they just claim that whenever they have religious rituals, they engage in adultery, they basically engage in incest, they basically engage in sexual practice, which is obviously completely false. But all this kind of stigmas kind of really transmitted across generations, and how they basically these groups are perceived by the dominant majorities. And I mean, I give the example of these these obviously in the book, but then I talk about the Alevis in Turkey, Baha'is in Iran, Ahmadis in Indonesia, and Pakistan. So I have some like a kind of a brief discussions of these groups, but also claim that the term can be applicable to the groups beyond the Muslim world.