LAUSR

This article analyses certain rhetorical aspects of “Islamic State” (IS) propaganda. Specifically, it discusses arguments used to concretise calls to action, focusing on recurring ways in which supposed benefits of engagement are contrasted with disadvantages of abstention. It appears that the opposing notions of “sincerity” and “hypocrisy” underpin many of the arguments presented, which prompts a closer look at their respective symbolisms. The rhetorical prominence of these antonyms indicates an apparently conscious attempt to address contemporary issues of social identity and political marginalisation, whereby the experiences of Muslim minorities (including those in Europe) are repeatedly used as a discouraging example.