The online da’wa could be associated with online learning due to similarity of in the means of educating people but little but both are different in terms of objective. As online learning has been established for more than decades, it can be adopted and adapted in the framework of online da’wa. Two models of online learning are seen compatible with online da’wa namely, Community of Inquiry (CoI) and e-moderation. CoI concerns with three types of presence namely teaching presence, social presence and cognitive presence. With the huge target group of da’wa in online environment, this model can be adopted and adapted in online da’wa with da’wa presence, social presence and consciousness presence. It guides the way to reach a specific target group and manage conveying the message of Islam. E-moderation has five levels of learning namely begins with access and motivation, participation, information exchange, knowledge construction and development. The spirit of this model is the closeness in facilitating online learners, thus it guides the way to approach the target group of da’wah using the principle of the gradient. It has adopted and adapted online dawa with three levels of activity in online environment namely viability, sociability and competency.

1. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.
   
2. Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   
3. Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online Community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.
   
4. Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice & K. Schenk (Eds.). Encyclopedia of distance learning, (2nd ed.) (pp. 352-355). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-198-8.ch052
   
5. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
   
6. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
   
7. Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 1(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v1i1.2
   
8. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computermediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970
   
9. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437-469. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_3
   
10. Helland, C. (2000). Religion online/online religion and virtual communitas. In Hadden, J. K. & Cowan, D. (Eds.)., Religion on the Internet: Research, prospects and promises (pp. 205-224). New York, NY: JAI, An Imprint of Elsevier Science. PMid:10926503
    
11. Helland, C. (2002). Surfing for salvation. Religion, 32(4), 293-302. https://doi.org/10.1006/reli.2002.0406
    
12. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.)., Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 117-136). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-77684-7_8
    
13. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1111-1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.002
    
14. Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Massachusetts, MA: Mit Press.
    
15. Holsti, R. (1968). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    
16. Ismail, I. R. (2005). The future of techno daci in Malaysia. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the National Seminar on E-Community, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
    
17. Jewitt, C., & Triggs, T. (2006). Screens and the social landscape. Visual Communication, 5(2), 131-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357206065305
    
18. Keenan, A. (2009). Evaluating sociability online. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/Q7ODLX
    
19. Kongmanus, K. (2016). Development of project-based learning model to enhance educational media business ability for undergraduate students in educational technology and communications program. Journal of Advances in Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(5), 287-296.
    
20. Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627-639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.002
    
21. Mason, R. (1993). Written interactions. In R. Mason, (Ed.)., Computer conferencing: The last word (pp. 3-19). Victoria, Canada: Beach Holme Publishers. PMid:8465833
    
22. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49(2), 193-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.011
    
23. Neumaier, A. (2015). Handling deficiencies: Conditions, modes, and consequences of using online Christian discussion boards. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion, 6, 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004302549_010
    
24. Newman, D. R. (1996). An experiment in group learning technology: Evaluating critical thinking in face-to-face and computers upported seminars. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 4(1), 57-74.
    
25. Nor Raudah, H. S. (2006). E-dacwah: Its importance and implementation in Malaysia. In Y. M. Yusuf & M. H. Nawawi (Eds.)., Dakwah Islam Semasa (pp. 107-120). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Malaya.
    
26. Rabahi, M., Yusof, H., & Awang, M. (2016). Model of hope: Leading learning among the indigenous Orang Asli Students. International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 2(1), 1-12.
    
27. Saifuddeen S. M. (2002). Techno-da’i: New perspective of dacwah. Paper presented at Seminar Berdakwah Menerusi ICT. The State of Melaka, Malaysia.
    
28. Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
    
29. Salmon, G. (2006). 80:20 for E-Moderators. In I. M. Labhrainn, C. M. Legg, D. Schneckenberg & J. Wildt (Eds.)., The Challenge of Competence in Academic Staff Development (pp. 145-154). Ireland: CELT, NUI Galway.
    
30. Salmon, G. (2007). The tipping point. Research in Learning Technology, 15(2), 171-172. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v15i2.10919 https://doi.org/10.1080/09687760701482275
    
31. Scheifinger, H. (2009). Om-line Hinduism: World Wide Gods on the Web. Australian Religion Studies Review, 23(3), 325-345.
    
32. Tu, C. H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23(1), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1006/jnca.1999.0099
    
33. Wahid, F. (2004). E-Da’wah: Propagation through the internet. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/KmGGrf

Ashaari, M. F. (2017). The adoption and adaptation of online learning models in the framework of online da’wah. International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 3(1), 1-8