At the origin of our questioning, we started from the general postulate according to which the so-called violent political discourse, with a dominantly conflictual character, can only function in a situation of social tension in which the use of violent, even insulting, forms of language towards the adversary, which are commonly repudiated, can be completely licit and legitimate. To this end, we set out to pursue this questioning through a new corpus study, fuelled by an interdisciplinary approach. Certainly, the desire to study a political discourse fully anchored in a climate of crisis implies a dialectical reasoning. This dialogical interactivity emphasizes, on the one hand, the potentiality of language slides to function as a pre-existing social fact, having the ability to represent it and to grasp it in its complexities, its richness and its weaknesses, and on the other hand, the predominance of the discursive context and its irreversible impact on discursive productions that allow us to rethink the social haunted by the interests of political action, its vitality and volatility. Thus, the violent Islamist discourse seems to lose its oppositional and revolutionary character to become a domesticated Makhzenian party in the same way as other competing parties. Being aware of the complexity of language as a vector of power and revealing various realities inherent in discursive productions, with the observation of their correlations and general principles on which the discursive strategies specific to a type of discourse (political discourse) and a genre of discourse (political discourse qualified as violence), it is incumbent to summarize its results, to bring together its main conclusions and to draw the general balance sheet (based on what seems to us to be constitutive).