This article re-examines the Fadak Sermon through a critical discourse analysis approach, with a focus on the discursive construction of political resistance. A review of prior scholarship indicates that Western studies have predominantly conceptualized resistance as reactive or identity-based action, while Islamic scholarship has largely addressed it within juristic, ethical, or managerial frameworks. Consequently, political resistance in the Fadak Sermon has not yet been systematically examined as a discursive struggle over political rationality and the legitimacy of power.

The theoretical framework of the article is based on a three-level model that integrates critical discourse analysis with theories of hegemony and symbolic power, and traces their implications for political judgment and action in a coherent manner.

The main research question asks: How, and through which discursive mechanisms, does the Fadak Sermon reconstruct resistance not at the level of reactive acts, but at the level of defining political rationality and the criteria of legitimate power?

The findings demonstrate that the Fadak Sermon weakens the legitimacy of the dominant order discursively through strategies such as exposing the rupture between truth and power, redefining obedience as deviation, rationalizing resistance, and eliminating the possibility of ethical neutrality. As a result, resistance is framed not as a disorderly or destabilizing act, but as the logical outcome of an expanded horizon of rational judgment and the production of a conscious and responsible politico-religious subject. The functional logic of this discursive intervention is summarized in the conclusion in the form of an analytical table and a conceptual visual figure. The functional logic under discussion is presented in the conclusion in the form of an analytical table and a schematic.