It is a common claim that Islamist movements are disinclined to accept religious and political pluralism. This thesis questions that claim, on the basis of an analysis of the discourse of Hizbullah in Lebanon. Lebanon is a consociational democracy with many religious communities, where the political game is structured in terms of sectarian belonging. At the same time, long-lasting French influence and Lebanon's history have made important segments of society rather secular and liberal. In addition, the 16-year long civil war and the Israeli invasion devastated the country and created strong sectarian tension. Since 1992, however, great efforts have been made by many groups to rebuild the country and ensure that Lebanon becomes a viable nation-state for all its citizens, regardless of sectarian belonging.The theoretical and analytical framework for the thesis is based in the humanities. Critical Discourse Analysis as developed by Norman Fairclough provides the methodological basis, but I also draw on political and social science. The issues that Hizbullah addresses and the vocabulary it uses is analysed and compared to see what its attitudes to pluralism were in 1985 and what they are today. This is accompanied by an outline of the social, political and economic situations in 1985 and 2002, since these are assumed to be of great importance for Hizbullah s attitudes. The analysis shows that on the whole, it can assertively be said that Hizbullah does not represent a serious impediment to the evolution of pluralism in Lebanon. In fact, it encourages some political reforms that would speed up the process, the most important being an abolishment of sectarianism and an introduction of the numerical democracy, which is the common Western European way of ordering politics. A comparative analysis of written discourse as found in Hizbullah s Open Letter to the Oppressed, (published in 1985 and widely regarded as the party s manifesto), its electoral program from 2000, and a number of Lebanese newspapers shows that Hizbullah s discourse has changed to become much more liberal and tolerant now than it was in 1985. The party currently focuses on unity, dialogue and progressive political reform whereas the dominant notions in 1985 were conflict, ideological clash and an obsession with communal-religious identity and belonging. However, the party behaves differently on the national and regional scenes, and on the latter, its attitude to Israel and to some extent USA represents a serious difficulty. Hizbullah dehumanises Israelis and does not grant them any legitimacy whatsoever. What is more, this attitude has repercussions within Lebanon, since the party refuses to debate with other Lebanese its involvement in the Palestinian intifada and its continued resistance on a disputed piece of land in Southern Lebanon. All in all, the analysis suggests the potential, at least in ShÐÝÐ Islamism, for using a religious ideology to formulate modern and pluralist political views, despite the totalitarianism and intolerance that were so prominent at the outset. At the same time, however, the tragic conflict in the Middle East sustains the most important shortcoming in Hizbullah s pluralism: the dehumanising of Israelis on the regional level, and the unwillingness to debate the resistance against the Israeli state with Lebanese sceptics on the national level.