1234 Department of Islamic Community Development, Faculty of Ushuluddin, Adab, and Da’wa, IAIN Parepare
5 Tourism Management, National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, Taiwan afidatulasmar@iainpare.ac.id
Palakka:Media and Islamic Communication December 2025
Abstract This study examines Thomas Carlyle’s defense of Prophet Muhammad SAW as articulated in his lecture On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History (1840). At a time when Western society was dominated by negative stereotypes and prejudice against Islam, Carlyle presented a counternarrative by portraying Prophet Muhammad SAW as a sincere, moral, and heroic figure. Using a qualitative approach with Critical Discourse Analysis based on Norman Fairclough’s model, this research analyzes the text at three levels: textual representation, discursive practice, and social practice. The findings reveal that Carlyle’s discourse challenges dominant Western narratives by reconstructing the image of Prophet Muhammad SAW through ethical leadership, spiritual authenticity, and historical legitimacy. From the perspective of da’wah communication, Carlyle’s discourse functions as a form of intellectual mediation that promotes intercultural understanding and counters Islamophobic narratives. This study contributes to the field of Islamic communication by highlighting the role of intellectual discourse as an alternative medium of da’wah in shaping public perception and fostering cross-cultural dialogue.
Keywords: Critical Discourse Analysis; Da’wah Communication; Islam and the West; Thomas Carlyle; Prophet Muhammad SAW.
INTRODUCTION
Discourse on Islam and Prophet Muhammad SAW in Western intellectual traditions has long been dominated by stereotypes, misrepresentation, and polemical narratives. Historical constructions of Islam in Western writings often positioned the Prophet as an impostor, political opportunist, or source of civilizational backwardness. Such representations were not merely theological debates but functioned as ideological tools that shaped public perception, legitimized colonial attitudes, and reinforced cultural hegemony over the Muslim world. These discursive practices contributed to a long-standing negative image of Islam that continues to influence contemporary media narratives and intercultural relations (Smith, 2020).
Within the field of media and communication studies, discourse plays a central role in shaping social reality, collective memory, and public perception of religious communities (Malik, 2024). Communication is not merely a neutral transmission of information but a site where meaning, power, and ideology intersect. In the context of Islam West relations, discursive constructions of Islam have historically functioned as instruments of symbolic domination, producing narratives that normalize exclusion and cultural superiority. Understanding these constructions requires an analytical approach that situates religious representation within broader communicative and ideological frameworks.
In classical Islamic scholarship, da’wah is commonly understood as the act of inviting others toward the message of Islam, often associated with tabligh (conveyance), amar ma’ruf (promoting good), and islah (moral rectification). However, within contemporary communication studies, da’wah can be reconceptualized not merely as theological proclamation but as a communicative process that seeks to reshape public meaning, ethical perception, and social understanding. In this study, da’wah communication is defined operationally as a form of moral-ethical discourse that contributes to the clarification, rectification, or reorientation of public understanding regarding Islam.
A central debate in da’wah studies concerns whether da’wah must be intentional. Classical perspectives often emphasize niyyah (intentionality) as a necessary condition. However, within a communication framework, the function of discourse may exceed the speaker’s declared intention. A discourse may perform da’wah-like functions by correcting misrepresentation or promoting moral recognition, even if the speaker does not self-identify as a preacher. This study adopts a functional rather than purely intentional definition, focusing on discursive effects rather than declared missionary intent.
It is therefore necessary to distinguish between classical da’wah, which is explicitly religious and doctrinal, and modern da’wah communication, which operates within plural public spheres and engages broader audiences through ethical persuasion, cultural translation, and dialogical mediation.
In plural societies, da’wah may function as public ethical communication rather than direct theological instruction.
Da’wah communication differs from general intercultural communication in that it involves a normative orientation toward moral clarification concerning Islam. While intercultural mediation seeks mutual understanding between groups, da’wah communication seeks to rectify distorted representations and affirm ethical legitimacy. Not every defense of Islam qualifies as da’wah; it becomes da’wah-like when it fulfills at least one of the following discursive functions: (1) moral rectification (islah), (2) clarification of misrepresentation (tabyin), or (3) reorientation of public evaluation toward ethical recognition.
Within this operational framework, Carlyle’s discourse is not categorized as intentional missionary activity but as a da’wah-like communicative act insofar as it performs islah and tabyin functions by challenging false representations and reorienting moral evaluation of Prophet Muhammad SAW. This conceptual clarification provides the theoretical foundation for integrating Critical Discourse Analysis with da’wah communication in the present study.
In recent decades, the resurgence of Islamophobic discourse in global media and political rhetoric has renewed scholarly interest in historical counter-narratives that contest negative portrayals of Islam (Bangstad, 2022). Studies on religious representation increasingly emphasize the importance of revisiting historical texts to identify alternative voices that resisted dominant prejudices. Such an approach not only enriches historical understanding but also provides critical resources for contemporary communication strategies aimed at promoting tolerance and intercultural dialogue.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) offers a powerful methodological framework for examining how language operates within structures of power and ideology. By focusing on textual features, discursive practices, and social contexts, CDA enables researchers to uncover implicit meanings and ideological positions embedded in discourse. Applying this approach to historical texts allows for a systematic exploration of how alternative representations are constructed and how they function as interventions within dominant discursive regimes (Jameil dkk., 2024).
Within this analytical framework, Thomas Carlyle’s discourse on Prophet Muhammad SAW emerges as a significant yet underexplored case. Rather than approaching Carlyle’s defense as a mere expression of personal admiration or moral sympathy, this study positions his discourse as a communicative act that negotiates meaning and challenges hegemonic narratives about Islam. This positioning lays the groundwork for a critical re-examination of Carlyle’s contribution, not only as a historian or philosopher, but as an intellectual actor whose discourse carries communicative and da’wah-oriented significance (Poole dkk., 2016).
In the midst of this dominant discourse, the perspective of Thomas Carlyle in the nineteenth century presents a significant intellectual deviation. Through his lecture On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History (1840), Carlyle articulated a defense of Prophet Muhammad SAW by portraying him as a sincere, moral, and heroic figure. Carlyle’s interpretation challenged prevailing Western prejudices and offered an alternative framework for understanding Islamic leadership and spirituality. His discourse represents an early form of counter-narrative that questioned the epistemological foundations of Islamophobic thought in Western society (Donovan, 1973).
Recent scholarly works over the last decade have revisited Western representations of Islam through various lenses, including postcolonial studies, discourse analysis, and media studies. Research has examined Islamophobia in Western media (Poole, 2017), historical narratives of Islam in Europe 173 (Tama & Sulistyaningrum, 2023), and the role of intellectual discourse in shaping religious perceptions (Basir dkk., 2024). Other studies have specifically addressed Carlyle’s views on Islam, focusing primarily on historical interpretation, comparative religion, or intellectual biography (Chen & Dorairajo, 2020). These studies contribute valuable insights into Carlyle’s intellectual position; however, they largely remain descriptive and historical in nature Despite this growing body of literature, there remains a significant research gap. Existing studies rarely position Carlyle’s discourse within the analytical framework of communication studies, particularly da’wah communication. Moreover, few studies employ Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to systematically examine how Carlyle’s language, narrative structure, and ideological positioning functioned to challenge dominant Western discourses on Islam. As a result, the communicative power of Carlyle’s defense as a form of intellectual mediation and discourse intervention has not been sufficiently explored.
This study offers a novel contribution by analyzing Carlyle’s defense of Prophet Muhammad SAW through the lens of Critical Discourse Analysis based on Norman Fairclough’s threedimensional model: text, discursive practice, and social practice. Unlike previous works that focus on theological appreciation or historical sympathy, this research emphasizes the discursive mechanisms through which Carlyle constructed meaning, challenged hegemonic narratives, and negotiated ideological boundaries. Furthermore, by situating the analysis within the perspective of da’wah communication, this study reframes Carlyle’s discourse as an alternative medium of da’wah that operates beyond traditional religious preaching, functioning instead through intellectual engagement and moral persuasion (Ali, 2024).
RESEARCH METHODS This study employs a qualitative research design with a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach based on Norman Fairclough’s analytical framework (Fairclough, 2015). The qualitative approach is chosen because the research focuses on interpreting meaning, representation, and ideological construction within discourse rather than measuring variables statistically. CDA is particularly appropriate for this study as it enables a critical examination of how language is used to construct social reality and challenge dominant narratives within specific historical and ideological contexts (Wodak, 2018).
Research Object and Data Sources The primary object of this research is the discourse produced by Thomas Carlyle regarding Prophet Muhammad SAW in his lecture On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History (1840), specifically the section that discusses Muhammad as a heroic and moral figure. This text is treated as a unit of discourse that reflects both individual intellectual positioning and broader social ideologies.
Secondary data sources include peer-reviewed journal articles, academic books, and recent studies 174 related to Islam West relations, discourse analysis, Islamic communication, and da’wah communication. These sources are used to contextualize the primary text and support critical interpretation.
The primary textual source analyzed in this study is Thomas Carlyle’s lecture “The Hero as Prophet” in On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History (Carlyle, 1840/2008, Oxford World’s Classics edition). All quotations are taken from this edition, and page numbers are provided to ensure analytical transparency. The textual data were coded manually by identifying evaluative language, metaphorical expressions, modality markers, and rhetorical contrasts that contribute to the construction of Prophet Muhammad SAW’s representation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Textual Analysis: Representation of Prophet Muhammad SAW The textual analysis reveals that Thomas Carlyle constructs the representation of Prophet Muhammad SAW through a lexicon that emphasizes sincerity, moral integrity, and authenticity.
Carlyle consistently rejects the dominant Western accusation of imposture by employing evaluative language that frames Muhammad as a “sincere man” and a figure driven by genuine conviction rather than deception. Such linguistic choices function to reposition the Prophet within a moral and ethical framework that contrasts sharply with prevailing nineteenth-century Orientalist narratives.
Carlyle explicitly challenges the accusation that Prophet Muhammad SAW was an impostor by stating:“A false man found a religion? Why, a false man cannot build a brick house!” (Pollatschek, 2014). This rhetorical question functions as a powerful evaluative device. The modal certainty embedded in the declarative structure (“cannot”) eliminates ambiguity and asserts moral impossibility.
By equating religious foundation with architectural stability, Carlyle employs metaphor to naturalize sincerity as a prerequisite for historical endurance. The metaphor of construction implies that sustained social order cannot emerge from deception, thereby reframing prophetic legitimacy within rational moral logic.
Carlyle further rejects prevailing stereotypes by declaring: “The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man are disgraceful to ourselves only” (Carlyle, 2010). Here, the evaluative term “disgraceful” reverses the moral direction of judgment. Instead of condemning Prophet Muhammad SAW, Carlyle condemns Western misrepresentation. This inversion of evaluative stance represents a discursive reorientation in which the locus of moral deficiency shifts from the Prophet to his detractors. The pronoun “ourselves” implicates Western society collectively, transforming the discourse into internal critique rather than external defense.
In describing Muhammad as a hero, Carlyle writes: “He was a true Prophet; a Hero in a very high sense” (Carlyle, 2010). The adjective “true” functions as an authenticity marker, directly 175 countering accusations of fabrication. The capitalized “Hero” elevates Muhammad into Carlyle’s broader typology of historical greatness, integrating Islamic prophecy into a universal moral framework. Linguistically, the emphatic structure strengthens evaluative certainty and positions prophetic leadership within Carlyle’s moral historiography.
Carlyle emphasizes moral seriousness by asserting: “A silent great soul; one of those who cannot but be in earnest” (Traill & Carlyle, 2010). The phrase “cannot but be in earnest” contains implicit modality indicating inevitability. This construction portrays sincerity not as performance but as intrinsic character. The lexical pairing of “silent” and “great” constructs humility alongside authority, reinforcing ethical authenticity.
Carlyle also foregrounds the transformative impact of Muhammad’s leadership: “He kindled the world; the world’s Maker had ordered so” (Spector, 2016)). The metaphor “kindled” frames prophetic influence as illumination and awakening rather than domination. This metaphorical language shifts the representation of Islam from coercion to enlightenment, thereby contesting narratives that associate Islamic expansion solely with force. Such lexical choices contribute to the construction of moral legitimacy through imagery of light and awakening.
At the textual level, Thomas Carlyle constructs the representation of Prophet Muhammad SAW through deliberate lexical choices that emphasize moral sincerity and personal integrity. Carlyle repeatedly employs evaluative language that associates Muhammad with honesty, seriousness, and inner conviction, distancing his character from the dominant Western trope of deceit or manipulation.
Such lexical patterns are not incidental; they function to reposition Muhammad within a moral universe that values authenticity as the foundation of legitimate leadership. In critical discourse studies, evaluative vocabulary is understood as a key mechanism through which texts guide readers’ moral alignment and interpretive stance toward social actors (Rismawati, 2018).
Beyond individual word choices, Carlyle’s discourse relies on moral metaphors that frame Prophet Muhammad SAW as a figure whose authority emerges organically from ethical coherence rather than institutional power. By portraying prophetic leadership as rooted in truthfulness and moral courage, Carlyle implicitly contrasts Muhammad with figures who derive authority through coercion or falsehood. Metaphorical framing of this kind plays a significant role in shaping how audiences conceptualize social actors, as metaphors structure not only language but also cognition and judgment (Khasanah dkk., 2024). Through this strategy, Carlyle elevates Muhammad’s prophetic mission into a universal moral narrative comprehensible to a Western audience.
Carlyle also employs rational argumentation as a textual strategy to legitimize his representation of Prophet Muhammad SAW. Rather than relying on theological claims, he invokes logical reasoning to question the plausibility of sustained social influence arising from deception. By asserting that a false prophet could not inspire enduring commitment, Carlyle situates his argument within Enlightenment-informed rational discourse. This reliance on rationality is significant, as it 176 aligns the defense of Muhammad with dominant Western epistemological values, thereby enhancing its persuasive force (Tian, 2021). Textually, this strategy allows Carlyle to challenge prejudice without alienating his audience.
Another notable textual feature is Carlyle’s implicit rejection of the impostor discourse through contrastive narration. By juxtaposing Western misconceptions with his own moral reasoning, Carlyle constructs a binary opposition between prejudice and truth. This contrastive structure serves to destabilize entrenched stereotypes by exposing their logical and ethical weaknesses. Critical discourse scholars note that such contrastive framing is a common counter-hegemonic technique, enabling texts to undermine dominant narratives while proposing alternative interpretations (Ayalew Nigatu & Tadesse Admassu, 2023). In this sense, Carlyle’s language functions as an instrument of discursive resistance.
In addition to ethical framing, Carlyle’s discourse constructs Prophet Muhammad SAW as a figure of exemplary moral consistency whose actions align with his proclaimed message. Carlyle’s language emphasizes coherence between belief and practice, a feature that implicitly reinforces the credibility of Muhammad’s leadership. In discourse analysis, such alignment between moral claims and social conduct functions as a legitimizing strategy, as it reduces interpretive tension between what is said and what is done (Rohayana & Sofi, 2021). Textually, this strategy strengthens the portrayal of Muhammad as a trustworthy moral agent rather than a politically motivated figure.
Carlyle’s representation also gains significance when read against the broader backdrop of Orientalist discourse that dominated Western writings on Islam. While Orientalist texts frequently depicted Prophet Muhammad SAW as driven by ambition or sensual desire, Carlyle’s discourse systematically avoids such characterizations. Instead, he foregrounds restraint, discipline, and moral responsibility. This contrastive absence is itself a meaningful textual choice, as silence and omission can function as powerful discursive tools that resist dominant frames without explicitly naming them (Rismawati, 2018).
Furthermore, Carlyle positions Prophet Muhammad SAW as an agent of social transformation by emphasizing the ethical reordering achieved through his leadership. Rather than framing Islam merely as a theological system, Carlyle’s narrative highlights its capacity to reorganize social values and collective conduct. In textual terms, this shifts the focus from abstract belief to lived moral practice. Contemporary discourse scholarship suggests that representations emphasizing social impact contribute to the normalization of marginalized figures by situating them within universal narratives of reform and progress (Aswar dkk., 2023).
The legitimization of Prophet Muhammad SAW is further reinforced through Carlyle’s appeal to historical continuity and endurance. By underscoring the lasting influence of Muhammad’s message, Carlyle invokes temporality as a textual resource for validating truth claims. Discourses that emphasize longevity and historical persistence often function to naturalize authority and undermine 177 accusations of fabrication or opportunism (Spector, 2016). In this way, Carlyle’s language transforms historical survival into evidence of moral and spiritual authenticity.
Collectively, the textual patterns identified in Carlyle’s discourse reveal a systematic reconstruction of Prophet Muhammad SAW’s image that challenges dominant Western misrepresentations at the level of language itself. Through strategic lexical choices, narrative emphasis, and evaluative framing, Carlyle produces a counter-representation grounded in ethical reasoning and historical legitimacy. From the perspective of da’wah communication, such textual reconstruction demonstrates how discourse can function as a medium of moral persuasion and intercultural understanding without relying on explicit religious advocacy. This finding underscores the importance of textual analysis in uncovering subtle yet powerful forms of communicative intervention within intellectual discourse (Pollatschek, 2014).
Carlyle’s narrative structure further reinforces this representation by juxtaposing Western misconceptions with what he presents as historical and moral reasoning. Through modality and rhetorical emphasis, Carlyle asserts the implausibility of sustained influence emerging from falsehood, thereby legitimizing Muhammad’s leadership and prophetic mission. This textual strategy aligns with what recent discourse studies identify as counter-hegemonic representation, in which marginalized or misrepresented subjects are reconstructed through alternative semantic framing (Peters, 2023).
From a communication perspective, this textual construction operates persuasively by appealing to reason and moral judgment rather than theological assertion. In this sense, Carlyle’s discourse demonstrates how language functions as a communicative tool to challenge entrenched stereotypes and reshape audience perception an approach consistent with ethical persuasion in contemporary da’wah communication (Leotti dkk., 2022).
Table 1 Textual Representation of Prophet Muhammad SAW in Carlyle’s Discourse No Linguistic Feature Textual Evidence Discursive Function 1. Modal certainty “cannot build a brick house” Asserting moral impossibility of deception 2. Evaluative reversal “disgraceful to ourselves” Reorienting moral judgment 3. Authenticity marker “true Prophet” Legitimizing prophetic sincerity 4. Implicit modality “cannot but be in earnest” Constructing intrinsic sincerity 5 Transformative metaphor “kindled the world” Framing Islam as illumination Discursive Practice: Production and Circulation of Carlyle’s Discourse At the level of discursive practice, Carlyle’s lecture must be understood as a product of a specific intellectual environment in Victorian Britain, where public lectures functioned as influential 178 media for shaping elite and popular opinion. The production of On Heroes reflects Carlyle’s engagement with Romantic critiques of rationalism and his resistance to purely materialist interpretations of history. His choice to include Prophet Muhammad SAW as a heroic figure signifies an intentional intervention within dominant Western discourses on Islam.
At the level of discursive practice, Carlyle’s lecture must be situated within the communicative conventions of nineteenth-century British public lectures, which functioned as influential platforms for disseminating ideas and shaping public opinion. Public lectures during this period were not merely academic events but cultural performances that mediated knowledge between intellectual elites and the broader educated public. As such, Carlyle’s discourse on Prophet Muhammad SAW was produced within a communicative setting that allowed complex moral arguments to circulate beyond scholarly circles and enter mainstream intellectual debate.
Contemporary discourse studies emphasize that the medium of discourse production significantly shapes both form and reception (Ahmed & Chowdhury, 2025).
The production of On Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History reflects Carlyle’s broader intellectual project, which sought to reinterpret history through the lens of moral leadership rather than material progress. Within this framework, Carlyle’s decision to include Prophet Muhammad SAW as a heroic figure constitutes a deliberate discursive choice. By positioning Muhammad alongside other historical heroes, Carlyle normalizes Islamic leadership within a Western canon of moral exemplars. Such discursive inclusion functions as a strategy of recontextualization, whereby marginalized subjects are repositioned within dominant interpretive frameworks (Kanwal & García, 2019).
Carlyle’s authority as a well-established intellectual figure played a crucial role in shaping the circulation and legitimacy of his discourse. As discourse analysts note, the credibility of a speaker often determines whether a counter-narrative is perceived as deviant or as a legitimate alternative interpretation (Pollatschek, 2014). Carlyle’s reputation enabled his defense of Prophet Muhammad SAW to circulate without being immediately dismissed as apologetic or subversive. This positional authority allowed his discourse to function as an internal critique within Western intellectual traditions rather than as an external challenge.
The reception of Carlyle’s discourse must also be understood in relation to the interpretive horizons of his audience. Victorian audiences were largely influenced by inherited Christian polemics and colonial narratives that framed Islam negatively. Carlyle’s rhetorical strategy, therefore, avoided theological confrontation and instead relied on moral reasoning and historical reflection. Studies on discourse reception suggest that such adaptive strategies enhance audience engagement by aligning new perspectives with familiar cognitive and cultural frames (Ayalew Nigatu & Tadesse Admassu, 2023). In this sense, Carlyle’s discourse was designed to be persuasive without provoking outright resistance.
179 From the perspective of da’wah communication, the production and circulation of Carlyle’s discourse illustrate how meaning transmission can occur through indirect and dialogical forms of engagement. Rather than advocating Islam explicitly, Carlyle facilitates reinterpretation by reshaping the communicative environment in which Islam is discussed. This aligns with contemporary understandings of da’wah as a communicative process that prioritizes ethical dialogue, mutual understanding, and contextual sensitivity (Sarwat dkk., 2024). Discursively, Carlyle’s lecture thus operates as a mediating text that opens space for alternative understandings of Islam within Western public discourse.
An important aspect of Carlyle’s discursive practice lies in the intertextual resources that shape his lecture. Although Carlyle does not explicitly cite Islamic sources, his discourse implicitly engages with biblical narratives, Christian moral philosophy, and Western historiography familiar to his audience. This intertextual alignment enables Carlyle to translate Islamic history into a discursive register that resonates with Western cultural knowledge. Discourse analysts emphasize that such intertextuality plays a key role in facilitating the circulation of alternative meanings by embedding them within recognizable narrative frameworks (Zeyuan, 2015).
Carlyle’s rhetorical strategy also reflects an awareness of potential resistance from his audience. Rather than confronting dominant prejudices directly, he gradually reframes them through moral reflection and historical reasoning. This incremental approach corresponds with what communication scholars describe as persuasive adaptation, whereby speakers modify message delivery to accommodate audience expectations and reduce cognitive dissonance (Sahin, 2018).
Discursively, this strategy enhances the accessibility of Carlyle’s defense and increases its potential impact.
The circulation of Carlyle’s discourse extended beyond the immediate context of the lecture through its publication and repeated discussion within intellectual circles. As printed texts, Carlyle’s lectures gained durability and mobility, allowing their ideas to reach readers across different social and temporal contexts. Studies on discourse circulation highlight that textual reproduction amplifies the longevity and influence of counter-narratives by detaching them from their original communicative events (Poole dkk., 2016). In this way, Carlyle’s defense of Prophet Muhammad SAW acquired a broader discursive life beyond its initial audience.
Over time, Carlyle’s discourse contributed to the formation of a discursive archive in which alternative Western perspectives on Islam could be articulated and revisited. Although not dominant, such archives provide resources for subsequent scholars and thinkers seeking to challenge monolithic representations of Islam. Contemporary discourse research underscores the importance of these marginal yet persistent voices in shaping long-term shifts in cultural understanding (Altinyelken, 2021). Carlyle’s lecture thus functions as a discursive node that connects past and present debates on Islam.
180 From a da’wah communication standpoint, the sustained circulation of Carlyle’s discourse demonstrates how intellectual texts can operate as indirect channels of meaning transmission. By reshaping the terms through which Islam and its Prophet are discussed, Carlyle’s discourse contributes to a gradual transformation of interpretive frameworks within Western society. This finding aligns with recent scholarship that conceptualizes da’wah as an ongoing communicative process embedded within social discourse rather than as a singular act of proclamation (Rohayana & Sofi, 2021).
The discursive effects of Carlyle’s lecture can be observed in its capacity to subtly recalibrate Western intellectual engagement with Islam. While Carlyle’s discourse did not overturn dominant prejudices, it introduced an alternative evaluative framework through which Prophet Muhammad SAW could be assessed. Discourse scholars argue that such incremental interventions are often more effective than confrontational challenges, as they allow new meanings to coexist with established narratives before gradually reshaping them (Ejiofor, 2023). Carlyle’s lecture thus exemplifies a discursive strategy oriented toward gradual transformation rather than immediate disruption.
Moreover, Carlyle’s discourse demonstrates how counter-narratives can gain traction when articulated within culturally legitimate forms of communication. By employing the genre of the public lecture and adopting a tone of moral reflection rather than polemic, Carlyle aligns his message with prevailing norms of intellectual respectability. Studies in communication emphasize that genre selection plays a critical role in determining the persuasive reach of discourse, particularly when addressing sensitive or contested topics such as religion (Sikumbang dkk., 2024). This strategic alignment enhanced the acceptability and circulation of Carlyle’s defense.
The discursive practice evident in Carlyle’s lecture also highlights the importance of nonMuslim voices in the circulation of alternative representations of Islam within Western contexts.
While Muslim-authored defenses were often marginalized or dismissed, Carlyle’s position as an insider to Western intellectual culture allowed his discourse to function as a bridge between communities. Recent scholarship on intercultural communication suggests that such insider mediation can be particularly effective in challenging prejudice, as it reduces perceptions of bias and ideological threat (Wodak, 2018).
In this sense, Carlyle’s discourse operates as a form of cultural translation that renders Islamic history intelligible within Western moral and philosophical frameworks. Rather than translating Islamic doctrine, Carlyle translates ethical meaning, emphasizing values such as sincerity, perseverance, and moral leadership. Discourse analysts note that cultural translation of this kind enables discourses to travel across social boundaries while retaining persuasive coherence (Khasanah dkk., 2024). This translational function further amplifies the communicative reach of Carlyle’s defense.
Overall, the analysis of discursive practice reveals that the production and circulation of Carlyle’s discourse were shaped by strategic choices related to genre, authority, audience adaptation, 181 and cultural translation. These choices enabled Carlyle’s defense of Prophet Muhammad SAW to circulate as a credible and influential counter-narrative within Western intellectual discourse. From the perspective of da’wah communication, this finding underscores the significance of contextualized and dialogical communication strategies in fostering understanding and challenging misrepresentation.
Subbab ini, therefore, provides a critical bridge between textual construction and broader ideological dynamics, which are examined in the following discussion of social practice.
Social Practice: Ideology, Power, and Counter-Discourse At the level of social practice, Carlyle’s discourse on Prophet Muhammad SAW is embedded within broader ideological structures that historically shaped relations between Islam and the West.
Nineteenth-century Western society was characterized by a dominant worldview that positioned Christianity and European civilization as morally and culturally superior, while Islam was frequently constructed as its antithesis. These ideological formations were not merely abstract beliefs but were institutionalized through education, historiography, and colonial governance. Critical discourse studies emphasize that such ideologies operate as taken for granted assumptions that naturalize unequal power relations and legitimize cultural hierarchies (Abdul-Jabbar & Makki, 2024).
Within this ideological landscape, representations of Prophet Muhammad SAW functioned as symbolic sites through which broader judgments about Islam were articulated. Negative portrayals of the Prophet served to justify Western perceptions of Islamic societies as irrational, backward, or morally deficient. Contemporary scholarship on Islam–West relations highlights that these representations were central to the construction of Islam as the civilizational “Other,” reinforcing boundaries between “us” and “them” (Poole dkk., 2016). Such discursive practices contributed to the normalization of Islamophobia long before the term itself entered academic vocabulary.
Carlyle’s discourse intervenes in this ideological order by disrupting the moral logic that underpinned Western depictions of Islam. Rather than reproducing the binary opposition between civilized Europe and inferior Islam, Carlyle reorients moral evaluation toward individual sincerity and ethical leadership. This shift is significant at the level of social practice because it challenges the criteria through which legitimacy and moral worth are assessed. In critical discourse terms, Carlyle’s lecture introduces an alternative evaluative framework that destabilizes dominant ideological assumptions without directly rejecting Western cultural authority (Spector, 2016).
Power relations are central to understanding the significance of Carlyle’s intervention.
Dominant discourses gain authority not only through repetition but also through their alignment with institutional power. Carlyle’s position as a respected Western intellectual allowed him to exercise discursive power from within the dominant system. Scholars of discourse and power argue that internal critique criticism articulated by actors positioned within hegemonic structures can be particularly effective in opening spaces for ideological contestation (Almi, 2024). Carlyle’s defense 182 thus operates as a form of internal resistance that challenges Western Islamophobia without being easily dismissed as external or partisan.
From the perspective of da’wah communication, the social implications of Carlyle’s discourse extend beyond its immediate historical context. By demonstrating that Islamic values and prophetic leadership can be recognized and affirmed through Western ethical reasoning, Carlyle’s discourse contributes to a broader process of intercultural moral negotiation. Contemporary studies in Islamic communication emphasize that da’wah in plural societies often unfolds through such indirect processes, where recognition, empathy, and ethical convergence gradually reshape social attitudes (Hassan & Azmi, 2021). At the level of social practice, Carlyle’s discourse thus functions as a counter-discursive resource that challenges entrenched power relations and opens pathways toward mutual understanding.
The ideological significance of Carlyle’s discourse becomes more apparent when situated within the broader context of Western colonial expansion. During the nineteenth century, representations of Islam were deeply entangled with colonial interests, as negative portrayals of Muslim societies helped legitimize political domination and cultural intervention. Discourse scholars have noted that colonial power was sustained not only through military or economic means but also through symbolic systems that framed colonized populations as morally and intellectually inferior (Solopova & Naumova, 2024). Within this context, Carlyle’s positive representation of Prophet Muhammad SAW disrupts the moral hierarchy that underpinned colonial ideology.
Rather than reinforcing civilizational binaries, Carlyle’s discourse reframes Islam as a source of ethical order and social cohesion. These reframing challenges the assumption that Western modernity represents the sole path to moral progress. By attributing transformative social power to Islamic leadership, Carlyle implicitly questions the universality of Western moral authority. Critical discourse analysis highlights that such questioning represents a form of ideological resistance, as it destabilizes dominant narratives without overt political confrontation (Malik, 2024).
Carlyle’s intervention can also be understood as a form of symbolic resistance operating at the level of meaning rather than policy. While his discourse does not directly oppose colonial governance, it undermines the discursive foundations that render colonial domination morally acceptable. Scholars argue that symbolic resistance of this kind plays a crucial role in long-term ideological change by challenging the narratives that normalize inequality (Erasiah, 2021). Carlyle’s lecture thus contributes to a gradual erosion of the epistemic legitimacy of Islamophobic discourse.
The counter-discursive potential of Carlyle’s discourse lies in its capacity to rearticulate power relations through moral evaluation. By applying Western ethical standards to assess Western prejudice, Carlyle reverses the usual direction of moral judgment. This reversal exemplifies what critical discourse theorists describe as discursive recontextualization, where dominant evaluative frameworks are turned inward to expose their contradictions (Wulandari dkk., 2024). Such 183 recontextualization weakens the ideological coherence of Islamophobic narratives by revealing their ethical inconsistency.
From the standpoint of da’wah communication, Carlyle’s symbolic resistance illustrates how ethical testimony can function as a form of communicative agency within unequal power relations.
Rather than confronting domination directly, ethical discourse invites reflection and moral accountability, creating openings for reinterpretation and dialogue. Contemporary studies in Islamic communication emphasize that such indirect strategies are particularly effective in pluralistic and asymmetrical contexts, where overt religious advocacy may encounter resistance (McCarty dkk., 2016). At the level of social practice, Carlyle’s discourse thus exemplifies how counter-discourse can operate as a subtle yet influential force in challenging ideological dominance.
The relevance of Carlyle’s counter-discourse extends beyond its nineteenth-century context and resonates with contemporary patterns of Islamophobia. Modern Islamophobic narratives, often amplified through mass media and digital platforms, continue to rely on simplified and moralized representations of Islam and its Prophet. Scholars note that these narratives reproduce older ideological frames while adapting them to new political and media environments (Jameil dkk., 2024).
In this sense, Carlyle’s ethical reframing provides a historical resource for challenging the continuity of misrepresentation across time Contemporary media systems play a crucial role in shaping public perceptions of Islam through repetition, sensationalism, and selective framing. Research in media discourse demonstrates that negative representations gain persuasive power when they are embedded within dominant news values and political agendas (Aswar dkk., 2023). Against this backdrop, revisiting historical counternarratives such as Carlyle’s becomes analytically significant, as it reveals alternative modes of representation that resist reductionist framing and emphasize moral complexity.
Carlyle’s discourse also anticipates contemporary debates on intercultural dialogue by foregrounding ethical commonalities rather than civilizational difference. By recognizing moral leadership in Prophet Muhammad SAW through Western ethical reasoning, Carlyle models a form of engagement that bridges cultural divides without erasing difference. Studies in intercultural communication suggest that such ethical convergence can serve as a foundation for dialogue in plural societies, particularly when religious difference is politically charged (Kanwal & García, 2019). This approach contrasts sharply with contemporary polarizing discourses that frame Islam as incompatible with Western values.
From a critical perspective, the endurance of Islamophobic discourse underscores the limits of individual counter-narratives in dismantling structural inequality. However, critical discourse theory emphasizes that social change often emerges through the accumulation of discursive challenges rather than singular interventions (Ahmed & Chowdhury, 2025). Carlyle’s discourse contributes to this 184 cumulative process by inserting an alternative moral evaluation into Western intellectual history, thereby expanding the range of legitimate ways in which Islam can be discussed and understood.
In terms of da’wah communication, the contemporary significance of Carlyle’s discourse lies in its demonstration of how ethical testimony and intellectual solidarity can function as powerful communicative resources. Rather than positioning da’wah solely as religious proclamation, this perspective highlights its role in reshaping social meanings and moral horizons through dialogue and critical engagement. Recent scholarship in Islamic communication emphasizes that such approaches are increasingly vital in addressing Islamophobia within media-saturated societies (Poole, 2017). At the level of social practice, Carlyle’s counter-discourse thus offers enduring insights into how communicative action can contest ideological domination and foster more inclusive public discourse.
At a theoretical level, the findings of this study demonstrate the compatibility between Critical Discourse Analysis and the conceptual framework of da’wah communication. CDA provides analytical tools for uncovering how power, ideology, and representation operate within discourse, while da’wah communication offers a normative-ethical orientation that emphasizes meaning-making, moral engagement, and social transformation. When combined, these frameworks enable a critical yet constructive analysis of how discourse can function simultaneously as a site of ideological struggle and as a medium of ethical communication (Altinyelken, 2021).
This integration contributes to the theoretical development of da’wah studies by expanding its analytical scope beyond traditional religious contexts. Rather than confining da’wah to explicitly Islamic speech acts, this study conceptualizes da’wah as a broader communicative process that may emerge within secular or non-Muslim discourses. Carlyle’s lecture exemplifies how ethical recognition and intellectual solidarity can serve da’wah-like functions by challenging misrepresentation and fostering moral understanding. Such an expanded conception aligns with contemporary calls to rethink da’wah in relation to global communication and pluralism (Rismawati, 2018).
The implications of Carlyle’s counter discourse also extend to contemporary discussions on dialogue between civilizations. By demonstrating that Islamic leadership can be ethically appreciated within Western intellectual traditions, Carlyle’s discourse undermines essentialist views that portray civilizations as inherently incompatible. Scholars of intercultural dialogue argue that sustainable engagement requires recognition of shared moral concerns alongside respect for difference (Leotti dkk., 2022). Carlyle’s approach thus offers a discursive model for dialogue that prioritizes ethical resonance over ideological confrontation.
At the social level, the cumulative effect of counter-discourses such as Carlyle’s lies in their capacity to gradually reshape the boundaries of legitimate public discourse. Although individual interventions may appear limited in impact, critical discourse theory emphasizes that social change often unfolds through the accumulation of alternative representations that challenge dominant 185 meanings over time (Peters, 2023). Carlyle’s discourse contributes to this process by providing a durable reference point for ethical engagement with Islam within Western intellectual history.
In synthesis, the analysis of social practice reveals that Carlyle’s defense of Prophet Muhammad SAW operates as a multifaceted communicative act that intersects ideology, power, and ethical reasoning. Through counter-discursive intervention, intellectual mediation, and moral testimony, Carlyle’s discourse challenges Islamophobic representations and opens space for more inclusive understandings of Islam. From the perspective of da’wah communication, this study highlights the transformative potential of discourse as a medium for intercultural engagement and social reconciliation, affirming the relevance of Critical Discourse Analysis as a valuable approach in contemporary Islamic communication research.
Figure 1.
(Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional CDA Applied to Carlyle’s Discourse) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusion This study concludes that Thomas Carlyle’s defense of Prophet Muhammad SAW constitutes a meaningful counter-discursive intervention within Western intellectual history that operates at textual, discursive, and social levels. Through ethically grounded language, rational persuasion, and strategic narrative framing, Carlyle constructs an alternative representation that challenges dominant Western assumptions about Islam. This intervention does not merely reflect personal admiration but functions as a communicative act that reorients moral evaluation and disrupts hegemonic discourses that have historically marginalized Islamic figures.
From the perspective of communication studies, the findings affirm that discourse can operate as a site of ideological negotiation where power relations are contested through ethical reasoning rather than confrontation. By situating Carlyle’s lecture within the framework of Critical Discourse 186 Analysis, this study demonstrates how intellectual texts may circulate as credible counter-narratives when articulated through culturally legitimate genres and authoritative voices. Such discursive strategies enable alternative meanings to gain traction within dominant publics without provoking immediate rejection..
Suggestion Based on these conclusions, future research is encouraged to further explore the intersection between discourse analysis and da’wah communication by examining other non-Muslim intellectual or media discourses that contribute to alternative representations of Islam. Comparative studies across historical periods or media platforms may provide deeper insight into how counter-discourses evolve and circulate within changing communicative environments.
Practically, this study recommends that scholars and practitioners of Islamic communication consider ethical persuasion, intellectual mediation, and dialogical engagement as strategic components of da’wah in pluralistic societies. Rather than relying solely on normative or doctrinal approaches, da’wah initiatives may benefit from engaging broader publics through culturally resonant discourse that emphasizes shared moral values and critical reflection. Such strategies are particularly relevant in addressing contemporary Islamophobia and fostering sustainable intercultural understanding.
187 REFERENCES Abdul-Jabbar, W. K., & Makki, Y. (2024). Integrating Intercultural Philosophy into the High School Curriculum: Toward a Deliberative Pedagogy of Tadabbur in Diasporic Muslim Education.
Religions, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15020189 Ahmed, F., & Chowdhury, S. (2025). Rethinking contemporary schooling in Muslim contexts: An Islamic conceptual framework for reconstructing K-12 education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 57(2), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2024.2411325 Ali, Z. (2024). Critical discourse analysis of Martin Luther’s speech. Journal of Education, Social & Communication Studies, 1(2), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.71028/jescs.v1i2.12 Almi, H. (2024). Islam dan Transendentalisme dalam Konvergensi Teologis – The Arabist.
https://arabist.hu/volumes/volume-46/hanane-almi-2024/ Altinyelken, H. K. (2021). Critical thinking and non-formal Islamic education: Perspectives from young Muslims in the Netherlands. Contemporary Islam, 15(3), 267–285.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11562-021-00470-6 Aswar, H., Febrian, S. J., Alfayed, N., & Safitri, A. E. (2023). Prominent Muslim da`wah figures and their global role in changing the perception of Islam. Communications in Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(2), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.21924/chss.3.2.2023.62 Ayalew Nigatu, B., & Tadesse Admassu, M. (2023). Critical discourse analysis of the second inaugural speech of Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10(1), 2172805. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2172805 Baker, P. M., Jhou, T., Li, B., Matsumoto, M., Mizumori, S. J. Y., Stephenson-Jones, M., & Vicentic, A. (2016). The Lateral Habenula Circuitry: Reward Processing and Cognitive Control.
Journal of Neuroscience, 36(45), 11482–11488. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2350- 16.2016 Bangstad, S. (2022). Islamofobia Barat: Asal usul suatu konsep. Dalam Buku Pegangan Routledge tentang Islam di Barat. Routledge.
Basir, M. Z. K., Pao, N. A. M. T. A. @ T. A., Sham, F. M., Azam, A. S. B., & Razak, M. A. A. (2024).
A Holistic Conceptual Framework for Converts’ Da’wah Program by Integrating Al-Ghazali and Ibn Khaldun’s Guidance Models. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14- i8/22400 Carlyle, T. (2010). The Works of Thomas Carlyle: Volume 16: History of Friedrich II of Prussia, Called Frederick the Great Vol V (H. D. Traill, Ed.; Vol. 16). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511695551 Chen, Y., & Dorairajo, S. (2020). American Muslims’ Da’wah Work and Islamic Conversion ProQuest. MDPI, 11(383), 1–17. https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/rel11080383 Donovan, R. (1973). Carlyle and the Climate of Hero-Worship. University of Toronto Quarterly, 42(2), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.3138/utq.42.2.122 Ejiofor, P. F. (2023). Decolonising Islamophobia. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 46(13), 2863–2892.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2023.2181670 188 Erasiah, E. (2021). Muhammad, A Biography Of The Prophet Karya Karen Armstrong. Fikri : Jurnal Kajian Agama, Sosial Dan Budaya, 6(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.25217/jf.v6i1.1518 Fairclough, N. (2015). Analisis Tekstual. Dalam Buku Pegangan Routledge tentang Ilmu Politik Interpretatif.
Hassan, I., & Azmi, M. N. L. (2021). Islamophobia in non-Western media: A content analysis of selected online newspapers. Newspaper Research Journal, 42(1), 29–47.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739532921989136 Jameil, S. A., AliAkbar, S. F., & Oudah, S. T. (2024). Political Discourse in Arabic Media: A Critical Discourse Analysis. EVOLUTIONARY STUDIES IN IMAGINATIVE CULTURE, 1258–1264.
https://doi.org/10.70082/esiculture.vi.1433 Kanwal, S., & García, M. (2019). Representation of Gender Through Framing: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Hillary Clinton’s Selected Speeches. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(2), p321. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n2p321 Khasanah, E. A., Setyarini, N., & Kunta, A. (2024). Everyday Da’wah in a Secular Campus: Muslim Students and Informal Islamic Communication at Andhra University. Jurnal Dakwah, 25(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.14421/jd.2024.25204 Leotti, S. M., Sugrue, E. P., & Winges-Yanez, N. (Nick). (2022). Unpacking the worlds in our words: Critical discourse analysis and social work inquiry. Qualitative Social Work, 21(2), 260–276.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325021990860 Malik, A. H. (2024). Modern Western Trends In Serah Writing: An Assessment Of John V. Tolan And Craig Considine’s Approach. Hamdard Islamicus, 47(2), 09–36.
https://doi.org/10.57144/hi.v47i2.605 McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2016). Polarized America, second edition: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. MIT Press.
Peters, M. A. (2023). Who Leads, Who Follows? Critical Review of the Field of Leadership Studies: From the ‘Great Man’ & Trait Theory to Equity & Diversity Leadership in the Biodigital Era.
Beijing International Review of Education, 5(1–2), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1163/25902539- 05010009 Pollatschek, N. (2014). David S. Sorensen and Brent E. Kinser, Eds.: Thomas Carlyle. on Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. Dickens Quarterly, 31.
https://consensus.app/papers/david-s-sorensen-and-brent-e-kinser-eds-thomas-carlyle-onpollatschek/4f7bee12d5755fdf87f2a5151929582e/ Poole, A. H. (2017). The conceptual ecology of digital humanities. Journal of Documentation, 73(1), 91–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2016-0065 Poole, D. C., Burnley, M., Vanhatalo, A., Rossiter, H. B., & Jones, A. M. (2016). Critical Power: An Important Fatigue Threshold in Exercise Physiology. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 48(11), 2320–2334. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000939 Rismawati, C. (2018). The portrayal of Muhammad in Thomas Carlyle’s The Hero as Prophet and Akhtar Rizvi’s The Life of Muhammad. https://consensus.app/papers/the-portrayal-ofmuhammad-in-thomas-carlyles-the-hero-as-rismawati/aa0f2532b9b058ed833edf9198dfae91/ 189 Rohayana, A. D., & Sofi, M. (2021). Critique of radical religious paradigm: An epistemological analysis from principles of Islamic thought. Indonesian Journal of Islam and Muslim Societies. https://doi.org/10.18326/ijims.v11i1.163-184 Sahin, A. (2018). Critical Issues in Islamic Education Studies: Rethinking Islamic and Western Liberal Secular Values of Education. Religions, 9(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/rel9110335 Sarwat, S., Panhwar, A. H., Zubaida, Shahzad, W., & Shahzad, S. K. (2024). Critical Discourse Analysis of the Speech of Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the United Nations General Assembly.
Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(1), 95–106.
https://doi.org/10.55737/qjssh.603766284 Sikumbang, A. T., Dalimunthe, M. A., Kholil, S., & Nasution, N. F. (2024). Digital Da’wah Indonesia Ulema in the Discourse of Theology. Pharos Journal of Theology, 105(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.46222/pharosjot.1051 Smith, A. R. (2020). Faces of Muhammad: Western Perceptions of the Prophet of Islam from the Middle Ages to Today by John V. Tolan. Comitatus: A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 51, 300–302. https://doi.org/10.1353/cjm.2020.0034 Solopova, O. A., & Naumova, K. (2024). Just War: Critical Discourse Analysis of US Presidential Speeches. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 25(1), 387–402.
Spector, B. A. (2016). Carlyle, Freud, and the Great Man Theory more fully considered. Leadership, 12(2), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715015571392 Tama, Y. W., & Sulistyaningrum, S. D. (2023). A Systematic Literature Review of Islamophobia on Media: Trends, Factors, and Stereotypes. Indonesian Journal of Religion and Society, 5(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.36256/ijrs.v5i1.288 Tian, L. (2021). Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Discourse A Case Study of Trump’s TV Speech. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 11(5), 516–520.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1105.08 Traill, H. D., & Carlyle, T. (Ed.). (2010). THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. Dalam The Works of Thomas Carlyle: Volume 2: The French Revolution: A History I (Vol. 2, hlm. xix–xx).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511694943.002 Wodak, R. (2018). Discourse and European Integration (Vol. 86). Freie Universität Berlin, FB Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften, Otto-Suhr-Institut für Politikwissenschaft KollegForschergruppe “The Transformative Power of Europe.” Wulandari, S. N. A., Ihsani, A. F. A., Bachtiar, M. A., & Retpitasari, E. (2024). Navigating the Path to Islam: Evaluating Persuasive Communication in Conversion Guidance Programs at the Indonesian Chinese Islamic Unity Institute (PITI) in Surabaya. Tribakti: Jurnal Pemikiran Keislaman, 35(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.33367/tribakti.v35i1.3402 Zeyuan, C. (2015). Book review: Andrea Mayr and David Machin, The Language of Crime and Deviance: An Introduction to Critical Linguistic Analysis in Media and Popular Culture.
Discourse & Communication, 9(2), 269–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481314564857d