ABSTRACT
Given the paucity of understanding in the West regarding Middle Eastern discourse, this study provides a careful description of Islamic activist rhetoric. Using DICTION, a program that calculates some 40 different stylistic variables and 5 master variables, we compared the rhetoric of Western politicians, protestors, preachers, and pundits to that of Islamic activists. Relative to the West, the Islamic sample was relatively hopeful and communal, extremely doctrinaire, and often had a transcendental tone. Analysis within the Islamic sample showed it to be more flexible and variegated than might have been expected. Intriguingly, the rhetoric of violent Islamists was more optimistic than that of their nonviolent brethren. The violent groups were more likely to embrace charismatic authority and to substitute ideology for practicality. In short, our findings confirm some popular expectations of Muslim discourse but also call into question a number of received truths, all of which suggests that much more needs to be learned about the voices of Islam.
